PRESIDENT (): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

When I was speaking on this legislation yesterday evening, I was reflecting on the native forest logging industry—how it does not have a social licence and how it is a massive carbon bomb that is playing a large role in driving climate change and the breakdown of our climate, which in turn is, tragically, turning our planet into a place where future generations will find it impossible to enjoy the same levels of prosperity that we do today and who may, even yet, end up inheriting an uninhabitable planet because of the greed and the psychopathy of current generations, particularly those who represent the major parties in this place.

I want to make a few points about the native forest logging industry, particularly in Tasmania, and this is relevant in terms of the amendments that the Greens have secured to this legislation. Recently, thanks to the Bob Brown Foundation, we've seen the most distressing photos of a juvenile Tasmanian devil that was crisped—burned to death, dying in agony—in a logging burn in Tasmania. This one devil is symbolic of the millions of mammals that have been slaughtered by the native forest logging industry, either by being burned alive and dying the most agonising death or by being deliberately poisoned and dying the most agonising death. It is time the industry was held to account for this utter, abject animal cruelty—and that's just the mammals, let alone the insects and other invertebrates that are just destroyed in massive numbers by this industry. It is a biodiversity harvester. It is trashing Tasmania's biodiversity, not to mention trashing our clean air, not to mention trashing our beautiful landscapes, not to mention poisoning our beautiful rivers and waterways, not to mention poisoning our estuary systems, not to mention the massive amount of carbon it emits into the atmosphere. It's time to end native forest logging. It no longer has a social licence, and it is a mendicant industry that costs the taxpayer tens of millions of dollars a year even in my home state of Tasmania.

I'll give you a tip, colleagues: if you pulled the public subsidies out of the native forest logging industry it would be gone overnight, because it cannot survive without massive public subsidies—money that should be going into making sure everyone has a home, making sure we've got a health system that can properly look after people and a public education system where schools don't have to sell lamingtons to buy textbooks. Those are the things that that money should be going into, not propping up an environmentally destructive industry of climate criminals who have once again got their hands out for tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds.

The Greens have secured, as I said, an amendment that ensures coal, gas and native forest logging are prohibited investments under this legislation. It's worth pointing out that this is the same amendment put in place by the Greens for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This is the same amendment put in place by the Greens for ARENA. Those amendments prevented the CEFC and ARENA from being used as slush funds for coal and gas by the coalition government that we have now, thankfully, seen the back of.

The amendments negotiated to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill by the Greens ensure that the NRF will be focused on the task of rebuilding a genuine manufacturing base, not propping up coal and gas corporations and native forest logging. That is critical because the Greens want the moneys appropriated for the National Reconstruction Fund to be used to accelerate the transition in Australia away from coal, gas and native forest logging—those environmentally destructive industries that are contributing so massively to climate change.

We want to see these funds used to drive the transition away from those industries into the industries of the future, into industries that can help us become a world leader in transitioning to a net zero emissions society; that's what we need to be. Of course, there will be opportunities for those countries and jurisdictions around the world that can lead that transition, and we genuinely want the funds used in this legislation to drive and to accelerate that transition. We've also secured an amendment in this legislation that would mean that investments made by the National Reconstruction Fund board must align with legislated climate targets and any future updated commitment by Australia under the Paris Agreement.

Interestingly, the Greens took a policy to the last election to create a $15 billion Made in Australia Bank and manufacturing fund. Because of the amendments we have secured to this legislation, the National Reconstruction Fund reflects most of the core spirit of the Greens' Made in Australia Bank. I want to be very clear: the Made in Australia Bank was planned, with one of its primary tasks being to decarbonise Australia's existing manufacturing base. The amendments we have secured to the National Reconstruction Fund legislation will assist in achieving that aim.

Something that not a lot of people know is that, currently, Australia ranks 91st in the world for economic complexity. That's because, over the years and decades, we've traded off a self-reliant manufacturing base for an economy that is, to far too great a degree, reliant on the extraction and export of fossil fuels. You can see that in the gas industry today. The gas cabal in this country are effectively given the resource for next to nothing. They emit large amounts of climate-destroying carbon and methane and other greenhouse gases as they extract and convert the gas for transport. Then the overwhelming majority of the gas ends up exported to other countries around the world, while the gas price remains stubbornly high in this country, contributing to the cost-of-living crisis faced by so many Australians.

Because we are ranked so low for economic complexity and because the fossil fuel cabal owns the major parties in this place, through the institutionalised bribery of political donations, we are far too deeply reliant on a globally integrated open market economy, and therefore shocks abroad reverberate to far too great a degree throughout the Australian economy. We can see that today, as we have just gone through 10 consecutive interest rate rises in a row by an out-of-control Reserve Bank and a government that is pretending that it's all too difficult and it can't itself do anything to address inflation, which is of course an absolute load of neoliberal rubbish. By the way, it has never happened before in Australia's history that the RBA has raised interest rates at 10 consecutive board meetings.

What we are seeing is real wages decreasing at the fastest rate on record in Australia. Inflation is up, and we are overexposed to global supply shocks because of the factors I mentioned earlier. That means that, along with those global supply shocks that we are overexposed to—many of which are climate related, many of which are pandemic related, many of which, such as the war in Ukraine, are geopolitics related—plus this government's refusal to rein in the rampant profiteering that is going on from big corporations at the moment, who are using the cover of the global supply shocks to put up their prices higher than they otherwise would be able to, what we are seeing is an inflation spike. Then we get the Reserve Bank coming in and raising interest rates, putting massive strain on mortgage holders and renters, because this government is just putting the whole problem in the too-hard basket.

Well, here is a little shopping list of what this government could do. Firstly, they could put in place a corporate superprofits tax that would disincentivise corporations from price-gouging. Then they could remove the stage 3 tax cuts from the top end, walk away from the $368 billion of nuclear submarines that we don't need and that will actually make this country a more dangerous place to live, and they could use those savings to invest in programs that would actually help people with the cost-of-living crisis in a non-inflationary way—for example, put dental and mental health into Medicare. There would be no inflationary impact, but it would actually do something meaningful to help people, families with kids, struggling with the cost of living. They could make child care free. They could build more affordable homes so more people would have a home. This government has been very happy to intervene in the gas price, but it's stubbornly refusing to intervene in the rental crisis. It could do something to freeze rents. These are all Australian Greens policies, I might add. Finally, they need to raise income support, because people on JobSeeker are literally starving, and poverty is a political choice being made by the Labor Party.

I rise to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. One Nation is not inclined to support this legislation, but as usual we're going to try and make it better. I remind the Senate that this is why we are here—to improve legislation, not to rubber-stamp the green left political agenda. One Nation will be moving amendments to the bill. Our first amendment will attempt to put some substance behind the phrase 'Australia is the clever country'. This nation has produced world-leading scientists, engineers and inventors who have contributed a great deal to the body of human knowledge. But all too often clever Australians are forced to take their great ideas overseas to be commercialised and this intellectual property is lost to our nation. A recent example of this was a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine developed by the University of Queensland. It was refused a patent, and the TGA refused to approve it. Australia was left to import vaccines from overseas pharmaceutical companies.

A more famous example is the invention of wi-fi. The alliance which owns the trademark is not based in Australia but in the United States. While the CSIRO was eventually compensated to some extent, those making real profits from this piece of Australian technology are foreign companies like Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Intel and Sony.

The government says this bill will make it easier for industry to commercialise innovation and technology, supporting the development of our national sovereign capabilities. One Nation's amendment seeks to absolutely guarantee this by ensuring that the commercialisation of Australian intellectual property, for the benefit of Australia, is included within the investment parameters of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation, within the definition of 'constitutionally-supported activities'. A subsequent amendment will also loosen up the risk management guideline.

Innovation, ideas and extracting some reward from their success often require taking risks. Clever Australians often risk a great deal of their own money and reputation to bring their ideas to commercial realisation. At the very least the government should help them shoulder some of the risk if there's a good chance their innovation can benefit the Australian people.

One of these inventions was brought to my attention in about 2017 or 2018. A lot of Australians would be shocked to know that both the Liberal and Labor governments—and I personally spoke to two former Liberal MPs and PM Anthony Albanese—canned an asbestos eradication plant that I brought to them in 2017. The coalition government put aside $80 million in the budget. This went through a process. After going before six ministers, who dragged their knuckles, nothing happened with regard to this. It would have been the first plant in the world that would have dealt with 100 tonnes per day of deadly asbestos fibres, instead of burying them. Instead, every state and territory is leaving a deadly legacy for future generations to deal with. With a few minor changes the same plant could also deal with low-grade nuclear—that's, hospital waste—and solar panels. We have not discussed how hundreds of millions of panels are going to be dealt with, other than burying them, which has the potential to poison our waterways.

This is what they've turned their back on. They talk about innovation and the Reconstruction Fund, yet no-one was interested in taking up this technology, which would have actually got rid of asbestos, nuclear waste and solar panels. You're all pushing for solar panels, but no-one has told me how you intend to get rid of the solar panels, apart from burying them in the ground. You've lost this opportunity. It's still there, if you've got the determination to do something about it. But our Prime Minister wasn't interested.

Our second amendment once again seeks to ensure that it is Australians who benefit from the extraction of our natural resources. This is because Labor has once again caved in to the green Left extremists and ruled out investment in gas and coal projects by corporations, despite Australia's desperate shortage of affordable and reliable energy. This is despite Labor's promise to reduce household energy bills by $275 a year—a promise they obviously never intended to keep.

Our amendment will ensure that the ban placed on the corporation investing in the construction of pipeline infrastructure for the extraction of natural gas will not limit investment in pipelines for the transport of natural gas to Australian households and businesses. Australia has some of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world, yet we receive very little in return for their exploitation by mostly foreign-owned multinationals, which pay little to no tax in Australia. This is another issue I have raised with the former coalition and Prime Minister Albanese.

We in Australia export $91 billion worth of gas, and 93 per cent comes from the North West Shelf and seven per cent from the east coast of Australia. Of that $77 billion off the North West Shelf we get about $300 million in taxes because the Labor Party thought it was a great idea to increase the PRRT. On an investment they have a 15 per cent uplift factor. If they put $100 million a year in exploration, they get $115 million in tax credits, which accumulates every year. So your big companies—Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell—have accumulated about $400 billion worth of tax credits, so we're not getting anything out of the North West Shelf.

All these resources belong to the Australian people, and you're not chasing that. You're chasing your tail. You want to get rid of personal tax cuts for Australians, which they need and highly deserve, but you're not prepared to go after the multinationals, get rid of the PRRT and make them pay for the resources that belong to all Australians.

You allowed the Western Australian government to do another 25-year deal so that they get their gas at cost price. Premier McGowan has said: 'It's our gas. We're not going to send pipelines to the east coast to supply the rest of Australia.' That is what is actually happening. Yet nothing is done about it. No-one is interested. That gas does not belong to the Western Australian people. It is in our Australian waters and it belongs to every Australian.

We heard both the former prime minister and the current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, say, 'We're going to get multinationals to pay their fair share of tax.' I'm yet to see any of this. I'd like to see where this bill is going to go. If you're going to give handouts, is it going to be to multinational companies again, who don't pay their fair share of tax in Australia? That in itself is going to be very interesting too.

These things are very important to me. One Nation will continue to advocate for a transcontinental pipeline to bring gas from the North West Shelf to eastern Australia. It has to happen. If you don't do that, then we must transport it by ship, which would probably be a lot easier and cheaper than putting the pipeline in, but we have to look at it. We have a couple of hundred years, if not more, of gas that we can use to drive this nation and give cheap power to the Australian people.

It's an inescapable fact that, as more unreliable and costly renewables come online, more gas is needed to firm this intermittent supply. Green Left extremists either don't understand this or deliberately refuse to acknowledge it. One Nation will continue to advocate for our energy resources to benefit Australia and Australians first. We seek tax reform that ensures Australians get a fair return for our natural resources, as I stated. This government is going to need a way to meet the $368 billion cost for AUKUS. Properly taxing foreign-owned multinationals would be an excellent place to start.

I have a concern about this National Reconstruction Fund. If it's going to be set up by the minister and they are hand-picking who is on the board, who is going on the board? Is it going to be unionists? Are they going to say to the government which firms are going to be able to get funding? Will it be union dominated, meaning that they have to have union workers? These things need to be answered. And if that is the case—if union members are going to go on the board—then why? What right do they have to be on the board? It should be experienced people in the business world, not unions, involved in this. Those questions need to be asked.

I was listening to a Greens' senator yesterday—Shoebridge. He said that we're destroying native forests at a greater rate than human CO2. Actually, no, Senator Shoebridge. All your wind farms are destroying them. Go up to North Queensland on the tablelands and have a look at the hundreds of thousands of acres that you've put under wind farms. You've destroyed natural habitat. You've destroyed the flora and fauna. You are destroying them with your wind farms, which are killing birds and animals—killing flora and fauna. And there are acres and acres of them. There's the size of these wind turbines, which come from China—China, mind you!—and your solar panels, which are mostly out of China. There's 800 tonnes of cement in the base of one of these wind turbines. Again, how is that beneficial to the environment? Are we going to put the moneys from the fund into putting more of these into the country?

We can't run this country on just wind and solar. That is so stupid, to head down that path. It's not going to happen. We haven't got the batteries to store the power. So you're heading down a pathway that is going to destroy our economy, our jobs, our industries and our manufacturing—let alone putting people in a situation in their households where they will not be able to turn on their power for heating, for warmth. But no—listen to the Greens!

Senator Hanson-Young says: 'Scrap fossil fuel subsidies.' Well, then, let's scrap the billions in subsidies to renewable energy. What's the difference? Wind farms are destroying the environment—the wildlife, birds, flora and fauna. Solar panels do not and will not alter climate change and will not deliver the cheap, reliable power that we need.

The Greens are scaremongering with the term 'pollution' as to CO2. It's just ridiculous. It's a gas that is necessary, vital, for all life on this planet to exist. If you're going to scaremonger and tell us that we need to get rid of it, that is absolutely ridiculous. Ninety-seven per cent of CO2 is from natural sources—basically, the oceans, and 70 per cent of this earth is covered by oceans. So why the hell would we tax people or companies and businesses, or tell people to turn off their power? Even Tim Flannery said that if you turned it off and got rid of the CO2, it would never change a damn thing—never alter the earth's temperature at all. All this scaremongering that's going on is purely to get the vote or confuse kids in our education system who don't know what they're doing.

Europe has learnt from this. They got rid of their coal-fired power stations and shut down their gas, and now they understand that people are dying because they can't warm their houses and that their industries are going. Now they've turned around and they're opening up coalmines and building power stations.

And it's not only that. It's the hypocrisy from the Greens again. Where's your complaint about China? Where's your complaint about China's emissions of 30 per cent? You never mention that. You never mention shutting down the imports that we get from them, from all their emissions—not one word! No-one speaks about China or India. India won't change it till 2070 and China not till 2060. So what a bunch of hypocrites in this place! And you actually want to destroy our economy. You want to shut down people's livelihoods and our standard of living in this country. It's an absolute disgrace! I wish that you would actually talk with some truth instead of the scaremongering that goes on all the time in this chamber, purely to get the vote. And that is not what we are about. You want to talk about future generations. There is no computer modelling, no proof, to say that you know that temperature is going to rise by 1½ to two degrees in a hundred years time. What a joke!

This bill, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, provides an opportunity for Australia to build a new economic future. However, what that future looks like will be up to the government. It could be a future with a thriving economy, where we invest in renewable energy technology, the circular economy and new sustainable, innovative products, or it could be a future relying on more of the same under a different name—financing industries that destroy our environment, our climate and our home; focusing on defence technologies or industries that feed into giant fossil fuel projects; or allowing the destruction of country.

I commend the Greens for negotiating the prohibition of direct investment by the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation into coal and natural gas projects, as well as native forest logging. But there is more to this. There are many industries that are required for these projects to go ahead; they produce the equipment for gas drilling and the machinery needed for coalmining or for logging our forests. Today I will be moving amendments to prohibit the corporation from investing in these industries as well. I'll also be moving an amendment to prohibit investments in nuclear technologies, at a time when nuclear war has become more threatening than it has been over the last 30 years and at a time when we know not only the dangers of nuclear energy production and dealing with radioactive waste but also the economic rabbit hole that nuclear power constitutes. It only makes sense to exclude this thinking, which is from the past, from our planning for the future. For those of you worried about nuclear medicines, we can and will continue to produce nuclear medicines, but this can be done safely, through the use of particle accelerators rather than nuclear reactors, posing much less risk to our communities and environment.

I will also move an amendment requiring any extractive industry project or major development that is seeking funding through the corporation to demonstrate that they have thoroughly engaged with the traditional owners of the land of the proposed project, that they have provided information to traditional owners in accessible formats and properly consulted about what they are proposing to do, and, last but not least, that they have actually obtained consent for the project. Our economy of the future should not be built against the wishes and concerns of First Nations people. There are many projects that our people would like to, and will, support. Your votes on these investment related amendments will be a sign of which future you want to see for this country.

The second reading amendment in my name further stresses the importance of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation taking into account free, prior and informed consent. Australia has a poor record of ensuring First Nations people are being heard and are getting a say in what happens on their country. This would be an encouraging step towards ensuring we actually comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we endorsed 14 years ago but have done almost nothing to actually implement. This commitment could easily be incorporated into the investment mandate, which will be prepared shortly, and could be part of the investment application process. I therefore foreshadow that I will later move the second reading amendment in my name on sheet 1916, seeking the government's commitment to the corporation ensuring that the principle of free, prior, and informed consent is adhered to by those receiving funding for major projects with environmental impact.

I too rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. In relation to this bill, let me say upfront that there has been a lot of disappointing legislation and programs delivered by those opposite since they came into government, but this really ranks right up at the top of bad, bad legislation for our nation. This is a highly cynical bill that I think reeks of left-wing policies and politics, instead of being a genuine nation-building policy and program. It is a flawed fraud on the Australian people and the Australian economy, and it will do far more harm than good to this nation.

Labor has made a desperate, last-minute, dodgy deal with the Greens, which will prohibit coal or gas from receiving finance from the National Reconstruction Fund. The fact is that Australian manufacturers rely on cheap energy to make things onshore, but Labor's continued irresponsible demonisation of gas and their broken promises to bring power prices down will force more Australian manufacturers offshore. One result of that is possibly far more expensive gas for Australians, but it also impacts people like the Ukrainians, who we're forcing still to rely a lot on Russian gas, so every expert in the country is calling on the Prime Minister to unlock more supplies of gas. Indeed, some manufacturers have had their gas bills triple. At the same time, those opposite say this is all about supporting Australian manufacturers.

What this dodgy, irresponsible deal has done is ensure that we make it as difficult as possible for Australian manufacturers. In fact, you couldn't think of anything worse to do to Australian manufacturers at this time than to triple their energy prices. Are you taking a photo of me, Senator Pratt?

No, I'm taking a photo of my neck—good ergonomic practice.

Sorry, Acting Deputy President Cox. I thought I was seeing Senator Pratt take another photo in the chamber. My apologies. It is very, very clear that, despite all of their rhetoric before the election, Labor will always work with the Greens against the interests of families, businesses and our manufacturers. That is very clear. No matter what they say before the election, they always do that after the election.

Benchmark power prices for hundreds of thousands of Australians are set to rise by more than 20 per cent over coming months. Sadly, for all Australians who are already struggling with the increased cost of living, including increased power costs, this desperate and very dodgy deal will make it worse for Australian manufacturers and for everyday Australians through further increases to power prices. The Minister for Industry and Science speaks out of one side of his mouth, saying that he supports gas, but his actions in caving in to these radical Green amendments speak the loudest. This is a very bad bill, which has become even worse with this dodgy deal. We on this side of the chamber will fight it because it is such a flawed bill.

There are five main reasons why this bill is flawed. Let me share them with you now. The fund will be administered by a corporation with an independent board, who will deliver against an investment mandate set by the government, but that framework is fundamentally flawed for five reasons. As I've said, it will make the circumstances for Australian manufacturers and for Australian energy consumers—that is, Australian families—all the worse. What's worse is that Labor and the Greens understand these flaws, yet they are still going ahead with this legislation. To me, it reeks of them pushing through the repeal of the cashless debit card, knowing, and having had warning of, the consequences this would have for thousands of Indigenous Australians and remote communities, but they were ideologically hell-bent on introducing it—the safety and security of those communities and women and children be damned! That is exactly what we're seeing here. They are going to introduce this legislation, come hell or high water, and they don't really care about the implications for Australian workers, Australian manufacturing and, of course, our energy producers.

Let's have a look at the five reasons why this is such bad legislation. Firstly, the bill is almost devoid of any economic considerations. The government promised before the election to address rising energy prices, but, as we've heard time and time again in question time inside this place, it's another broken promise. They don't really care at all. The government must address rising energy prices, and they must address labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains, if our manufacturers are to succeed. Without the policies—and they have no policies in any of these areas yet to create stronger economic conditions—any government spending like this, apart from being inflationary, will have no positive impact on our economy. It would be money in one pocket and money out of the other, due to the cost pressures that the government in its first nine months has completely failed to deliver, as every Australian will tell you about the pressures on their hip pockets.

The coalition is opposing this bill because this arrogant government is telling our manufacturers what they think they need and what they ideologically are now bound to deliver because of this deal, rather than addressing what our manufacturers actually need to be competitive, to produce and to employ Australians. The simple fact is that, without these other policies, they are holding industry back, and this is not just useless but counterproductive. It seems that every time Labor are in government, they have such terrible luck. Every time they come to government, there is such an unprecedented crisis, but that is government and that is always the case. That's the first thing, that they don't have the economic policies to make this policy work.

The second flaw—fundamental flaw—in this policy is that this bill will create even more lost time for manufacturers. In this terribly broken model, it will take far too long for money to start flowing to manufacturers. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, on which the NRF is modelled, was established in 2012, and the first investment took nearly 12 months to make. Our manufacturers cannot afford to wait that long. The government announced that the NRF should be up and running by next financial year, but, of course, they have not yet given any indication of a start date. Why? Because they know it is going to be a long time away. That's the second reason this is such flawed legislation.

The third reason is that the NRF is based on a highly flawed and very poor funding model. The model shifts from competitive grant programs, which have built within them robust processes for government to acquire equity and for how government provides loans. This, in their model, will lead inevitably to unfavourable and unintended consequences. Government equity and loan schemes are less accessible than grants, and manufacturers are almost certainly going to struggle to meet their return-on-investment thresholds or put together detailed business cases in-house. These are the sorts of things that the Labor Party and the Greens do not think about. What is the reality of business development and equity financing and capital-raising for manufacturing companies in Australia? What will happen to failed or failing loans? It is clear that the last experiment down a very similar path was the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, which uprooted manufacturers. Eligibility is another issue. Certain industries may have margins which are too small or could be too risky with disrupted supply chains that many companies are still facing.

The fourth flaw—the fourth very fundamental flaw—in this legislation is that this bill undermines investment certainty in our nation's priorities. With the government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities on a highly partisan political whim not based on sound economic principles, it will undermine investment decisions and erode investors' confidence. This is particularly pertinent to the space industry, to complementary medicine and, to a lesser extent but still validly, to the recycling industry. The Labor government's new priorities are too vague and they strip industry policy of the focus needed to drive investment in highly tailored and specific sectors. This is so typical of Labor, choosing to spray money indiscriminately instead of continuing investment certainty for our manufacturers and our industry.

If that wasn't enough, there is a fifth reason why this is such a flawed fraud on the Australian people: the bill, ultimately, is fiscally irresponsible. In delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy—which was highly targeted, specific and aimed at value-adding for manufacturing in this nation—an initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of this bill. But this is the kicker: the timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval. Think about that. This is the next Labor Party slush fund, one of $10 billion. This is why it is so flawed.

In fact, similar financial structures to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the IMF itself:

Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles—

such as the NRF, which is what we're talking about today—

should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided.

They are bad policy and they are fiscally irresponsible. The IMF also said:

Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms.

Let's not forget: Labor are carelessly rushing through a total of $45 billion of off-budget spending. This has to be stopped by this place. It is inflationary. It will further drive up the cost of living, particularly power prices, for all Australian families. Worse, it will not achieve the desired or the stated effect by those opposite of increasing targeted manufacturing in this nation.

I'll finish on this, which is something that absolutely floored me—but, then again, I'm not surprised. When the Assistant Minister for Manufacturing, Senator Ayres, and the department were pressed in Senate estimates recently about whether any modelling had been done on the inflationary pressures of the NRF, and what inflationary pressures they would cause, what do you think the answer was? Had the Labor Party and the government modelled this in any way to determine the inflationary impact on Australians, particularly now with the high cost of living for all Australians under this government? The department official said, 'No.' No inflationary modelling on this at all, despite the fact it is very clear this could well have an inflationary impact on Australians and on companies, particularly for their energy prices. When pressed further—as if that wasn't bad enough—the response from the official was this: they didn't do it because they didn't think it was necessary. This government did not think it was necessary to even model the inflationary impact of this clearly inflationary policy. The only reason you can possibly imagine they did that is they can say, when it inevitably drives up inflation and energy costs, 'Well, no-one told us.' That's because you didn't ask and because you ignored the economic facts.

The coalition acknowledges the importance of having strong supports for Australian manufacturing, which is why we achieved this and delivered the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. But it was transparent and it was sound economically. Labor's National Reconstruction Fund is many times the cost, has great risks for Australian taxpayers and will demonstrably not result in any benefit for Australian manufacturers. It will just result in more pain for Australian taxpayers.

Throughout Australia's history, manufacturing has been at the heart of our economic growth and success. The revitalisation of our manufacturing sector is of critical importance not only as a pillar of our domestic economy but also as a crucial element of our national security. Supporting our manufacturing industry is, therefore, key to Australia's future. However, the future will not look so kindly—history will look very dimly—on Labor's National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill. This bill fails to address the economic conditions now facing Australian manufacturers. It fails to provide for timely funding. It fails to present manufacturers with a rational funding model. And it fails to provide investment certainty. The bill is, in other words, a reckless and slapdash attempt to throw money at the manufacturing industry, with no certainty as to the returns that it will deliver. This is typical Labor legislation. This is typical Labor policy on the run. It is neither rational nor responsible. It is, in fact, an embarrassingly poor attempt at a manufacturing policy. Under this government, Australians, including manufacturers, are dealing with soaring energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains. This economy, under this Albanese Labor government, is spiralling out of control. The government's response to this chaos is to tell manufacturers what they think they need rather than addressing what they want.

A number of weeks ago, I attended the 25th anniversary celebration of the Geelong Manufacturing Council. Geelong has an incredible history of manufacturing. It is one of the centres of excellence of manufacturing in this country. So it was with great pride that I attended that function, which brought together manufacturers from the areas of food, agriculture, diesel, petrol, heavy chemicals and right across the spectrum of all types of manufacturing. I'll tell you the two things that manufacturers were talking about, while the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Corio, gave his speech, which said nothing of substance. I'll tell you what they were saying on the floor of the event. There are two things that this Labor government needs to fix. One is spiralling energy costs and the ridiculous energy cap legislation, which has created more uncertainty—so much uncertainty that the gas import terminal proposed by Viva Energy at Geelong's refinery is now up in the air. There is so much uncertainty because of the haphazard and unacceptable way that this government has attempted to fix the spiralling costs of energy. The other thing is, of course, the multi-employer bargaining provisions. Manufacturers around this country are appalled by what this government is doing to their business. They are appalled. Any business approaching 20 employees, or with more than 20 employees, under this Labor government, is a sitting duck. Do you know why they're talking quietly on the floor of these events, speaking to us in confidence? Because, if they stick their head up, they will be destroyed by the unions. They will be targeted as soon as those provisions come into force.

If this Labor government wants to do the manufacturing industry any favour, it should get out of the way. It should allow our manufacturers across the country to thrive in the best possible conditions. I say, on behalf of all manufacturers in Victoria: one of the reasons that we have such a fine history of manufacturing is our low energy prices, delivered primarily by brown coal. That kept our energy prices, our electricity prices, lower than anywhere else in the country. Under this government and under the Daniel Andrews Labor government in Victoria, we are now delivering the highest, or amongst the highest, prices in the country, which is putting manufacturers' backs to the wall. And of course we will never forget in our city, in our region, in Victoria, what the former Labor governments, the Rudd-Gillard governments, did when they were in government. They imposed a carbon tax on all Australians and all manufacturers, which of course hurt everyone economically, particularly employers. It had a huge impact on jobs.

As part of that terrible climate that Labor created when it was last in government, Ford closed on Labor's watch. In 2013, under Labor, Ford announced it was ending manufacturing. And this Labor government continues to prosecute the argument that car manufacturing stopped under our government. Well, I can tell you there was no finer manufacturer in our city, in our region, than Ford at both Geelong and Broadmeadows, and they packed up shop—they announced that they were closing manufacturing—under the former Labor government, because the conditions that they were forced to compete in meant that Ford was no longer competitive.

This is terrible, terrible legislation. As I say, this is not what our manufacturers want. They want cheap energy prices. They want industrial relations harmony. They do not want a situation where, within a matter of weeks or months, they will have a knock at the door: 'Oh, we've got a vote. We're now coming for you. We've got Geelong Refinery in our region, so we're now going to suggest that all manufacturers in Geelong pay the same wages that are paid at a large corporation like Viva Energy.' There is so much fear. There is so much fear by reason of what this government has done.

I have to say as someone who has proudly stood up for manufacturing that before I was ever elected, growing up in Geelong, and after I was first elected in 2013, the many ways that we drove investment into Geelong manufacturers and into manufacturing across this country meant that those really dark days that we faced in 2013 were reversed. That was because of the enormous amount of investment on a competitive basis that we drove into great regions like Geelong, including our fine Geelong manufacturers. Of course, we're very proud of our $2.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which sought to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability and empowered over 200 key projects across Australia. Despite Labor promising over and over again that their National Reconstruction Fund would reinvigorate manufacturing in Australia, we saw next to nothing in the budget to roll out this program. And now Labor have chosen to spitefully redirect the Modern Manufacturing Initiative funding without even having rolled out their own National Reconstruction Fund.

So I say to this government, from the grassroots, from the manufacturers and their workers, who work so hard every single day to produce the goods and services for our country: why don't you start listening? Why don't you start listening to what they're saying in their factories on the factory floors, in their shopfronts and in their businesses? They want cheaper power prices. They want industrial relations harmony. They want to be allowed to get on and deliver. Supported by great programs like the Modern Manufacturing Strategy, that's what these manufacturers were doing.

Let me just reiterate that, firstly, this bill ignores key economic issues. The government have failed to address rising energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains, which they need to if our manufacturers are to succeed. This is classic Labor policy: 'Let's just throw a bucket of money at this.' That's just what they did with the VEDC, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. The government thought it was part of the market, and it was a disaster—tens and tens of millions of dollars of losses.

The second flaw with this bill is it will create even more lost time for manufacturers. This is a broken model. Under this model, which was modelled on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—which is a much more specific program—it will take a very significant time for the money to start flowing. Our manufacturers cannot afford to wait that long, particularly when all of the investment that we put into manufacturing has now been reallocated or cut. The NRF has a very poor funding model because it shifts from a competitive grant program with robust processes, where applications are decided on their merits, to government acquiring equity and providing loans, which is likely to lead to unintended consequences. Government equity and loan schemes are less accessible than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet the return-on-investment thresholds, or all of the investment required to put together a detailed business case in house. What's going to happen if a manufacturer is saddled with a failing loan? What is going to happen to the financial viability of those businesses? That is a question that the government cannot answer.

The bill also undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with the government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities on a political whim, undermining investment decisions and eroding investment confidence. This is particularly pertinent to the space industry, complementary medicine and, to a lesser extent, recycling. I have to say, on that note, that just yesterday I had a meeting with a university which is doing an enormous amount of work in space and aerospace. They are doing cutting-edge work, actually working with a private business in launching a satellite. Not only are they giving incredible opportunities to their students but also they are embracing school students. To exclude space and aerospace as a key manufacturing priority is a very, very big mistake which needs to be rectified.

The other point that I want to make is that the bill is fiscally irresponsible. It delivers funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy, without any of the checks and balances. An initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of the bill, but the timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval, which is extraordinary. Can you imagine if we, when we were in government, brought a $10 billion appropriation to the parliament and had not been accountable? In fact, similar financial structures to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the IMF, which stated:

Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles—

such as the NRF—

should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided.

And this is the important part. The IMF said:

Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms.

Of course, Labor hasn't done any of that. It has just got this ugly bucket of money—a big, fat slush fund that it's just throwing out there, thinking it can do the job. I can tell you, from the manufacturers on the ground all around this country, this is shocking policy. It is time that this Labor government started to focus on the things that really matter: proper competitive support, lower power prices and changing the revolting, regressive IR laws.

I stand here as a member of a coalition party that has a very strong record in supporting manufacturing in this country. We did so during our time in government and we would have continued to do so, and we will continue to do so when we are in government again, because we believe that there are manufacturing industries in Australia that have been the backbone of our country.

I can't think of any manufacturing sector that has been more vertically integrated in this country than the Australian wine industry. I come from a very proud winegrowing area in the Riverland of South Australia. The reason I say that I think the wine industry is probably the most vertically integrated manufacturing sector in Australia is that, first of all, we grow the primary product. We grow something from the natural environment, whether that be the soil or the water. We then manufacture that product into something that is not only consumed in Australia but also a very large export product for Australia.

Most importantly, it is also a tourism industry. Many people from around the world visit Australia because they want to experience not just our world-class wine but also the experiences that we offer through our fantastic wine regions. Every single state and territory of Australia has something proud to showcase in relation to the wine industry. So there can be no better example of a vertically integrated manufacturing sector than our fantastic Australian wine industry.

Do you know what I think the greatest threat to the manufacturing sector in Australia is right now? It's rising energy costs. So many of our fantastic industries rely on not just reliable energy but also affordable energy in order to manufacture. There is no point in making great investments in manufacturing unless you actually deal with the cost of doing business and the challenges that are currently facing the Australian manufacturing sector.

It was so devastating yesterday to hear about pools. As the shadow minister for health I think there can be nothing that is more important than being able to provide an environment in Australia where Australians, particularly Australian children, have access to a healthy lifestyle and are able to participate in sport. We're now hearing that swimming centres across the country are not heating their pools to the same extent that they previously were—to the temperatures that they thought were the most appropriate to enable a comfortable experience for Australians who want to participate in water sport and swimming as part of their health regimes. We're now seeing swimming centres dropping the temperature because they cannot afford the energy costs to maintain the temperature levels in pools. This is an extraordinary admission of the failure of this government to provide support to deliver the things that we know that Australian businesses, industry and manufacturing can do.

The other thing that is really disappointing about the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 is the fact that it basically applies every single piece of bad policy and bad legislative design and regulation, and stuffs it all into one bill. The fact that we have got this off-balance sheet—and it seems to be a bit of a track record of those opposite in the ideological pursuit of somehow being able to say that budget repair has occurred. They've stuffed a whole heap of money into off-balance-sheet instruments so that they don't have to list it on the bottom line of their budget. It's not just this one. We've got Rewiring the Nation. We've got the housing fund, which, surprisingly, seems to have disappeared off our Notice Paper and doesn't seem to be the subject of the hours motion that is sitting on our tables to consider later this afternoon. That one seems to have disappeared. But we have got tens of billions of dollars being hidden in off-balance sheets.

Of course, we all know that it doesn't matter whether it's on the government's balance sheet or whether it's off the government's balance sheet; expenditure that is not designed appropriately and is not designed around the productivity outcomes that need to be associated with it becomes inflationary. This government has not paid any attention whatsoever to the inflationary impact of this fund. Because it is off-balance sheet and it relies on other market aspects in terms of the functioning of the broader market, what can actually be spent becomes really uncertain. It also avoids proper and robust process, and proper and robust scrutiny.

When you are spending this kind of money, Australian taxpayers' money, you really do need to make sure that you have got a proper competitive process and that you're not just running around picking winners from the people that you like and your mates, and from the sectors that maybe are unionised. Who would know? But you can't do that, because Australian taxpayers have got the right to know that, when you put these kinds of things together, there is the absolute maximum level of strength of governance around them because it's their money you're spending. The one thing we need to remember in this place—and I never forgot this when I was in government: not one cent of the money I had responsibility for the administration of was my money. Every single cent of that money I was administering on behalf of the department I had responsibility for belonged to the taxpayers of Australia, and those opposite would do well to remember that.

The other thing is: what are the dodgy deals that have been done with the people in this place, that have been necessary to get this bill through this place? I will go back to another fantastic primary industry that has great advanced manufacturing opportunities in this country—that is, the forestry sector. What is the deal that has been done with the Greens to enable them to agree to this? I have to say: when this was first put out there during the election, the Prime Minister, who was the opposition leader at the time, claimed that forestry was at the heart of his manufacturing policy. So where has it gone? He said:

I promise you that if I become Prime Minister, a Government I lead will not shut down the native forest industry.

Is that still absolutely a promise? And, 'I will take up the fight to protect your job too.' It is going to be really interesting when we see the deals that have come out of this.

But your own previous minister for agriculture in a previous Labor government—somebody who I think had probably more integrity in him than anybody who sits on the other side of this chamber: Joel Fitzgibbon—is still an absolute supporter of the forestry sector and the opportunity that it provides for Australians, because we do have some of the best landscape, in order to develop a forestry sector. Guess what? Forestry is the ultimate renewable, and we have got an opportunity in Australia to have one of the greatest forestry sectors because we have the ability to harvest and replant and make sure we are managing our forests, because we have some of the best forestry management in the world. We are recognised worldwide as having some of the greatest forestry management. For those who don't particularly like forestry: have a look in your own house and have a look at some of the things you rely on for some of the fabulous hardwood timbers that are grown in this country, as we sit here today.

Overall, I suppose the greatest disappointment, as we stand here today, is the fact that once again we see bills that were promised coming in a form that has been mangled in order to get a deal. We have seen promises broken, as we have seen the promise to the forestry sector broken by the actions and changes of this government. 'Hand on heart, I will not touch your forestry sector'—it's all fine to say that before the election because you don't want to lose the votes in Tasmania or in other areas that rely so heavily on forestry on Australia, but all bets are off as soon as you win the election. You don't seem to care.

It seems to be a track record in just about everything so far. Who could forget the broken promise of power bills going down by $275. That has got to go down in history as this government's 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' You know what? I reckon there would not be a person, a business or anybody in the manufacturing sector in Australia who could honestly tell you their power bills have gone down since this government has come to office.

But it's not just the energy bills that are impacting; we have seen so many broken promises in so many places to so many Australians. In the sector that I have responsibility for, as the shadow minister for health and aged care, the almost litany of broken promises are too many to recall and recount here. A couple of the really serious ones include the promise to Australians that the government was going to put the care back into aged care. They wanted to put 24/7 nurses into nursing homes. There is nobody on my side on my politics that doesn't want to see older Australians get the care and support they deserve as they age, but you can't go out and make promises just to get yourself elected and then, once you're elected, try and double down on them even though you do not have the capacity to deliver them. There simply aren't any nurses to fill your 24/7 nursing commitment. I think that is absolutely irresponsible and creates distress and uncertainty in such an important sector—one that's just come through the COVID pandemic under extraordinary pressure. But you don't seem to care about that.

The other one is that we were very proud, when we were in government, of our track record, because we believe that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is one of the core pillars of our health system. Being able to provide Australians with timely access to affordable medicines is something we thought was an essential part of our health system, and that's why we prioritised it. So, during our time in government we moved to make sure we listed every medicine that was recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee so that Australians could get access to them.

What do we find right now, only a matter of months into this government? We've seen, first of all, the de-listing from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme of a life-changing insulin drug for diabetics called Fiasp. We saw the minister do a sort of semi-backflip last week when he agreed he would continue its prescription for another few months for people who were already receiving it but then had the audacity to double down at the Pharmacy Guild conference last week and say, well, actually, it wasn't his fault, because he hadn't had a request for ministerial intervention in this. I mean, really: these people have been talking to you for about nine months, Minister, asking you to consider using your ability to stop the drastic price reduction that has been forced onto it by a mechanism. That's why you had the ministerial discretion in the first place—because we knew there would always be circumstances whereby an innovative component of a drug that wasn't based on the molecule that it was based on would mean it was going to be superior.

This drug, Fiasp, is a superior drug, and we know that while 15,000 Australians who rely on it would have been chucked off it in a couple of days time, they at least have it until the end of September. But what happens then? Really, Minister, this is a very lazy way of addressing this, and we would call on you to honour the commitment of this chamber. This chamber actually agreed and passed legislation that included an amendment that said that you would relist this on a permanent basis. So, honour the promise, and honour and respect the decision of this chamber and relist that medicine on a permanent basis.

The other one is that the PBAC approved a drug called Trikafta for children aged between six and 12 who are sufferers of cystic fibrosis. We found out a few weeks ago that the government had decided that it wasn't going to list the drug on the PBS. If I detected a little bit of a tone yesterday when Senator Farrell was asked in the chamber about this, he did, speaking from the speaking notes that he was handed at the last minute, seem to indicate that there were some ongoing discussions to see how this drug could be listed 'as soon as possible'—whatever that means.

But to have a government that only months into its reign is already taking life-changing drugs off the PBS and refusing to list drugs for six- to 12-year-olds who suffer from cystic fibrosis is a tragic indictment of your inability to manage a really important health system and the PBS. The fact is that last time you were in government, by your own admission on the public record, your health minister in the Gillard-Rudd government actually admitted that you had stopped listing medicines on the PBS because you couldn't afford to do so. Right now we are, as I said, only a matter of months into the reign of this particular Labor government, and already we are seeing drugs taken off the PBS and a minister refusing to intervene—a minister seeking almost to mislead about when he found out about this problem. We know that the company has been speaking to his office for months and months, yet he says he found out only a few weeks ago, and we've had a life-changing drug taken off for young people. (Time expired)

I rise to oppose the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, because it will do nothing to halt the deindustrialisation of this once proud manufacturing nation—a deindustrialisation that's been happening at pace before our eyes. Over the past decade we've produced fewer manufacturing goods than we did in the previous decade, which is the first time on record that that's ever happened. We now no longer produce enough steel for our own domestic needs, despite being the world's largest producer of the main components that go into making steel—coking coal and iron ore.

Later this year, tragically, our last major fertiliser plant, or at least a plant that produces urea, the most important fertiliser used in farming, will shut. Just after Christmas this year, we will effectively be completely reliant on other countries to grow our food. About half of Australian food production requires the use of urea, and we will no longer make it in this nation even though the feedstock for urea is natural gas—and we've got heaps of that. We're the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, but we will no longer manufacture the important product of urea. Not to mention AdBlue, which most people have become aware of given the crisis we had there about a year ago. You need urea to make AdBlue for the trucking industry.

It's not a good news story for manufacturing. We really do need radical action to rectify that. I'll put on record at the start of this contribution that I don't think the former coalition government took this issue seriously enough and did not take sufficient action to try to turn things around. The main reason for the decline in our manufacturing industry—I'll put it down to two factors. One is energy prices. We've heard that manufacturers are paying more than double for electricity and 50 per cent higher for gas, and those figures are actually from before Ukraine's crisis. That has killed competitive manufacturing in this country. Given that our labour costs are high, we just simply cannot compete if our energy costs are high too. We have to make a choice. If we want to have dear wages, which I think we all do and it's a good thing people get paid well in this country, then we have to have cheap power prices. If we have dear wages and dear power prices, we'll end up with no jobs. That's what has been happening in the manufacturing industry, with 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost over the past few decades—a pace that has been increasing.

The other big factor in this decline is the complete free ride we have given to the Chinese Communist Party on their entry into the World Trade Organization. When they entered the World Trade Organization just over 20 years ago, in 2001, they made commitments to the world that they would become more transparent in their subsidies, they would remove massive energy subsidies from their industries. They have done nothing. They've actually doubled down on those over the last two decades, and yet we sit back and seemingly take no action against this complete abuse of the international trading system. And so there's no surprise, or should be no surprise, when they steal our jobs.

Why do we now import 50 per cent of our steel needs? That wasn't the case 20 years ago. We had steel plants; we had enough steel plants to produce enough steel for Australia. Now we only have two steel mills left and we import around half of our steel needs from overseas, mainly from China. Why does that happen? How can China compete against us? We send them the coking coal and the iron ore from here, all the way through to China. They turn that into steel—it's not a particularly labour intensive process—and we import it back from them. Why can they do that? Because they massively subsidise their own energy industry. On some measures, put forward by unions in the United States, the energy subsidies for Chinese steel manufacturing approach 60 and 70 per cent of their production costs subsidised by the Chinese government. Why do we not take action against this? Why do we sit back and let this happen? We should be taking more action against that, and I'll have more to say about that towards the end of my contribution.

I do want to go to this bill, though. I'd be keen to support things that would help our problem around declining manufacturing, but this bill won't do that at all because there is smoke-and-mirrors financial trickery by the government going on in this bill. The headline here is that this will be a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. The minister says it's going to build a fertiliser plant, apparently. It's going to do all these things, make all these promises. But let's look into the actual numbers and the detail. This is what it's cost us in industry policy and manufacturing policy for decades. There is far too much focus on headline BS, if I can say that. There is absolute rubbish in headlines that sound good—$15 billion here; $1½ billion there—but when you look into detail it doesn't add up to much at all.

This fund won't actually be direct grants to build a urea plant or anything like that, it will simply be a loan facility or an equity injection. They'll take investments into manufacturing through this $15 billion fund. And obviously, like anybody making an investment, you expect a return on that investment. You expect the return of the capital with interest, as the government will do from this fund. So, it's not a free kick for the manufacturing industry.

Let's look at what the actual benefit will be from $15 billion of loans or equity. Currently, the 10-year government bond rate is 3.3 per cent. It's fallen a little bit in the last couple of months, but it is 3.3 per cent. Even if the government only required that return—and typically in other funds they've required a little bit more to have some adjustment for risk, but, let's be fair, and I'll be very generous to the government and say that they'll lend out at roughly the 10-year bond rate of 3.3 per cent—that would mean that the interest on $15 billion that the manufacturing industry would have to pay would be $484 million a year.

How much would that save them? Well, they could go to the market, of course, and borrow money. The BBB interest rate, which roughly would be what a lot of manufacturing companies would be rated around, is currently 6½ per cent, so their interest bill on $15 billion would be just shy of a billion dollars—$984 million. So it's $484 million if the government lends them money and $984 million if they borrowed from the market. That's $500 million a year. For an industry that invests, the manufacturing industry, despite our de-industrialisation, it actually needs investment of capital expenditure of $10 billion a year, so this is not a big saving. It's not going to do much; $500 million is not going to do much. In fact, it's actually less than the $1½ billion the former coalition government put aside that this government has scrapped to replace this amount.

We've got to drop this rubbish, as I say, this industry policy by media release, where we think we put out a media release and it's going to make a difference because the number looks big on that. It's a perverse episode of Utopia here where people go, 'Let's just put a big figure on a whiteboard, and that will solve all the issues.' It's not going to do that. It is not going to rekindle an era of industrialisation in this nation based on those very clear figures alone.

We have to get serious if we want to rebuild manufacturing in this country, so I don't want to support a lame attempt to distract from the real issues that face Australian manufacturers. I think doing so would give false hope to the manufacturing industry. It would also mean that the bureaucrats here, and the government more broadly, would just put their pens down and say: 'It's all done. We've passed a reconstruction fund. Our work here is done, and we don't have to actually tackle the real issues that face Australian manufacturing, fix those and, through that, actually make sure that we rekindle investment.'

We did have a serious look at this in the Nationals party a few years ago during the COVID crisis. Do you remember we were going to make things again after COVID? Do you remember all that? We didn't want to be reliant on China and all that stuff, and we were going to make things. We thought, 'Let's have a serious attempt at making a contributions debate of becoming a manufacturing country again.' So, we produced a nine-point plan from the Nationals party to do this. We spoke to lots of people in the industry, so we didn't have any particular sacred cows around trade policy or energy policy. We just wanted the best for Australian manufacturers. The Nationals party ticked off on this, saying that if we're serious we need to take action against China for its illegal trade policy actions. These are not just the actions they've taken against Australian exporters in the last few years post-COVID. As I mentioned, these are the massive energy subsidies. They get away with blue murder through trade policy and we take no action. We can, under WTO rules, institute a proper inquiry into Chinese energy subsidies to their manufacturing industries, and, if that study came back that those subsidies were against WTO rules, which most certainly they would be, then we could take what is called countervailing action against them and protect our own industries.

Why don't we do that? Why don't we stand up for Australian jobs and put an end to the abuse that China has engaged in on manufacturing for the last couple of decades? It's obviously not just affecting our nation; those jobs are stolen from all over the Western world. We now have a situation where almost the entire renewable energy supply chain is controlled by China. We're constantly told we've got to transition to these new energy types, but all our solar panels, our wind turbines and the rare earths that go into so many renewable energy technologies, like batteries through lithium processing, are all made and come through China, again thanks to these subsidies. We have to take action against this. As I say, in the Nationals party we were putting aside possibly decades of perceived wisdom about free trade, but it's not free trade when another nation does not abide by the rules, which China has not been doing.

We also need to recognise that a rekindling, a reindustrialisation, of Australia is not going to come through government investment. As I went through the figures before, the $15 billion here doesn't mean $15 billion; it's a few hundred million. It's not enough. As I said, about $10 billion a year is invested in manufacturing today, and that's in a climate where our manufacturing is declining. We need more than $10 billion a year,. We probably need to double that if we're serious about regrowing Australian manufacturing. It's just not going to come from Canberra. We do not have $10 billion a year to put into manufacturing.

Debate interrupted.

Social media has played a significant role in shaping and influencing our world, especially in the last decade. TikTok is a large social media conglomerate that has recently been under fire for good reason. TikTok got a real boost during COVID lockdowns and has been widely adopted, mostly by teenagers and young adults. Approximately seven million Australians now use the platform.

It is posing a new threat, however, that we have not seen from a social media platform yet. TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance, which is headquartered in Beijing. If any of those opposite are unaware, the CCP is frequently putting displays of aggression towards Taiwan and is constantly exploiting its economic power to coerce and interfere in sovereign countries. The CCP's National Intelligence Law came into effect in July 2017. This law requires Chinese citizens and entities to provide full cooperation with CCP intelligence agencies and keep it secret. The US, UK and New Zealand governments have taken action by restricting the use of the platform, and there's now a push to ban the app right across the US. There are genuine concerns about the amount of data that the app can access on your phone—possibly even your location—and I seriously urge caution to TikTok users. Deleting the app is possibly the only way that you can prevent access to your data.

I commend my colleague Senator Paterson for the work that he's doing as the shadow minister for cybersecurity, to raise awareness on this issue—a very important issue. You can't take national security too seriously. It's a very important issue, and I urge the Australian government to act as promptly and as thoroughly as they possibly can.

I rise to speak on the choice that the people of Aston have this Saturday. Mary Doyle has spent her career fighting for working people, and I know she would be an incredible addition to this parliament.

Can I note just how grateful we are in Victoria to have had the honourable Leader of the Opposition visit four times ahead of the by-election, because there is no better campaigner for Labor in the seat of Aston than Mr Dutton, known friend of my home state. His record, indeed, is very well known—the leader who likes to refer to female journalists as 'mad witches' and who, when Minister for Health, was voted the worst in 40 years. We welcome him to Victoria, and we welcome him to metropolitan Melbourne, in particular, where the Liberals hold just three seats in a region home to 5.2 million people. I was honestly surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition out and about so much, given his known phobia of my home state. After all, this is the member who said we were too scared to go out to restaurants at night. I certainly hope he's not missing out on some of the quality food in Bayswater and Rowville because he's eating in his hotel room in fear instead.

I know Mary Doyle and the people of Aston see Mr Dutton's disdain for our state and our community—a leader who is always angry, always negative and always against the policies that the country needs. This is the leader of the 'no-alition' that continues to vote against Australian manufacturing, against lower power bills and against secure jobs. The people of Aston deserve a member with a positive plan for a brighter future, and I wish Mary all the best.

I want to talk today to a petition entitled 'Bring back Nurses, Physios And Allied health in aged care homes. Stop taking our jobs'. This petition on Change.org has reached over 20,000 signatures. Support for allied health care is something that I've focused on in my time as the Greens aged-care spokesperson. I recognise that Labor has taken important and significant steps to improve and support the aged-care sector, and we welcome that. However, there is so much more that needs to be done. In the same way that we have done with climate, we have shown the value of having Greens in parliament, pushing the government to go further and faster to deliver what's really needed. A critical area in aged care is support for allied health care. Sadly, we have heard too many stories of people missing out, as funding models have changed and providers have cut jobs, hurting residents. One of the stories shared on the petition read:

My Dad had care from physios when he was in an aged care centre 10 years ago. Every resident should have the benefit of physiotherapy to help with their mobility. I'm certain that Australians expect a high level of care, not limited hours for ENs and others, and we all want the recommendations of the report introduced and adhered to.

The Greens believe that the government should start by providing additional funding for the sector. There has been some additional funding, but more is needed. People who need physios should be able to access physio support. We are still short of the required benchmark that the sector is calling for. We need to see additional funding. We need to see mandated minimum levels of care and reporting about how much physio and other allied health services residents in aged-care homes and in-home care are receiving. We need to see an end to restrictive practices. Overall, we need to see better support for residents through allied health and other methods.

Today, I'd like to acknowledge the great work that the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation does and has been doing for the last 30 years. Established to help promote, guide and encourage leadership in rural and regional Australia, they've done excellent work with both short-course programs and longer term scholarships. I particularly want to talk about a new leadership program that they've developed in conjunction with the Regional Australia Institute: the Leading Australian Resilient Communities program. Just recently, it brought together 20 people from across the rivers-to-plains region of north-eastern Victoria and southern New South Wales for a five-day leadership program. They graduated in Rutherglen, Victoria last month, and I congratulate each and every one of them.

Together they worked on developing leadership skills, building networks to share their knowledge, and sharing expertise and contacts so that they can all go home and make an impact in their regions. The four groups that came together presented their community projects to stakeholders, supporters and media at the graduation, with projects focusing on digital connectivity, addressing mental health concerns amongst youth, youth engagement in life skills, and food security in the event of natural disasters. The benefits of these programs cannot be overstated. They are a win for regional people and they are a win for regional areas. Rural and regional Australia needs strong leaders, and the foundation has over 2,000 alumni members spread right throughout Australia, providing valuable and broad expertise and capacity to lead and inspire into the future.

Today I wish to speak to the inquiry into Australia's human rights framework, which was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights by the Attorney-General earlier this month. In my role as a member of the human rights committee, I am delighted that we are reviewing how our human rights inform our legislative process. I am proud to sit on this committee alongside my Labor colleague and chair, the member for Macnamara, who has advocated so strongly for this review. Human rights are a central part of our society and help us effectively maintain social cohesion. All people are entitled to respect and opportunity and to participate in the social, cultural and economic life of our nation, free from hatred or harassment. Labor is committed to defending the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both at home and abroad. This commitment is central to what Labor stands for, and what we have always stood for.

To advance this commitment, in 2008 the federal Labor government conducted a nationwide consultation to consider whether human rights were sufficiently protected and promoted in Australia. In 2009, the National Human Rights Consultationreport made 31 recommendations, including a whole-of-government framework for human rights and the establishment of the joint committee on human rights. This year, the Albanese government has committed to reviewing the effectiveness of this framework through the scrutiny process of the Human Rights Committee. This government takes protecting human rights very seriously and understands how important upholding those rights are, through transparent governance, unlike those opposite, who have continually compromised the rights of Australians through disastrous policies over the last nine years. (Time expired)

enator COX () (): Today I want to talk about sea country, and how important that is to First Nations underwater cultural heritage that needs to be protected. Recently, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties examined the UN Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and supported the ratification of this convention. First Nations people have been on this country for 65,000 years, and we've lived through significant changes in water levels. This means a lot of our cultural heritage is now underwater. Indeed, some of it has always been underwater. Rising sea levels will mean more sites will be submerged. Further, much of this cultural heritage is intangible. Our current methods of identifying underwater cultural heritage apply to shipwrecks and planes and, in fact, don't apply to our underwater cultural heritage.

One of the recommendations of the Juukan Gorge report was that Australia ratify the UN Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The government has committed to implementing this recommendation, but we do not yet have a time line. This must be a priority for the government, if they are serious about protecting and preventing further incidences of damaging and destroying our cultural heritage. Only one out of 8,000 cultural heritage sites is listed as underwater in Australia and is protected under First Nations underwater cultural heritage protection, and that is the Brewarrina fish traps. This is absolutely shameful. This is our culture. These are our ancestors. This is our story and our connection and this is why we fight so hard to protect it. We need a government that is taking that seriously and making a commitment as soon as possible.

Why has the Queensland health department withdrawn funding for its award-winning COVAX research program studying the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines? This program is the creation of 27 highly skilled researchers, health professionals and administrative staff. They were supported by multiple partners, including 12 health service agencies, five universities and two private pathology services. COVAX was strongly supported by Queenslanders, rapidly enrolling more than 10,000 participants, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, from 85 per cent of postcodes across the state. Countries like Australia are uniquely placed to investigate vaccine efficacy because their diverse populations were, until late in the pandemic, relatively free of the COVID-19 virus. The COVAX team didn't just collect the standard data. Participants provided information on environmental and social determinants of health, and provided biospecimens of blood and saliva that have been used to derive genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic datasets that will shed light on how the novel vaccines impact the immune system.

Studying immune response is a vital part of assessing vaccines, and COVAX's work is consistent with similar studies completed on other vaccines. The research is particularly important because two new vaccine delivery platforms were used: modified messenger RNA and vector DNA. It is particularly important because the original trials of this vaccines were meant to last for two years, but the placebo group was vaccinated only after two months. The study and the biobank have enormous international significance, yet, instead of answering vital questions about why Australia, one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, had such high excess mortality and so many cases of long COVID in vaccinated people, the study is being forced to close down. All Australians deserve answers to the questions these vaccines have raised.

I rise to speak about the children's television industry in Australia, the amazing work they do and the need to support Australian content and stories. Australia has so much to be proud of when we consider children's television. There are amazing productions, showcasing amazing writers, animators, directors and actors: Bluey, Kangaroo Beach, Itch, Scouts Honor, The Wishmas Tree and My Year 7 Life. I am amazed at how much local talent we have in all the amazing locally made shows. I attended the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Children's Storytelling this week, celebrating Australian content in Australian television shows and ensuring Australian content is seen at home and around the world. The industry has had a tough time in the last 18 months, as many industries and most Australians have. What this industry needs above all else is a government that is supportive of its right to create Australian content for Australian kids so that that content can flourish in Australia and elsewhere.

The Albanese government supports Australian content and understands Australian kids deserve to see Australian content on our screens. I grew up watching Australian content on television screens. Now the next generation should not be robbed of this opportunity. A commitment to an Australian content quota is good policy. I've spoken several times in this place about media and Australian content and how important it is to our way of life. What we cannot overestimate is the amount of economic benefit that's brought to local regional areas in my home state of Tasmania and, in fact, to regional areas around the country. We are world leaders. We produce some of the best children's television there is around the globe, but we should also be allowing our children to listen to our accents. (Time expired)

Two sitting weeks ago it was my pleasure to join colleagues to launch the Parliamentary Friends of Hazara group. I'm honoured to be a co-chair of this group, along with Mr Andrew Charlton and Ms Kylea Tink from the other place. I look forward to working with them and all members of the Parliamentary Friends O Hazara to raise issues of concern to Hazara people and to magnify Hazara voices in this place. The Hazara have faced many generations of religious and ethnic persecution, the seizure of lands, enslavement and genocide in their beautiful home region of Hazaristan in central Afghanistan. About one in four Hazara have been forced to flee their homelands, and they are now scattered in a great diaspora around the world, including 60,000 who now call Australia home and enrich our community and contribute massively to our country. But persecution is not what defines Hazara people. They are a culture of musicians, poets and artisans inspired by a rich oral history and a connection to place.

Since the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, the persecution of Hazara in Afghanistan has ramped up again. Now is not the time for Australia to turn its back on Hazara people, but the Labor government has quietly abandoned the processing of refugee applications for potentially thousands of Hazara people trapped in Afghanistan, many of whom have family here in Australia. As a leading immigration lawyer told SBS News recently, Labor is wiping its hands of the Afghanistan problem. Make no mistake, this is an abrogation that will cost lives, including Hazara lives. I commend the group to the Senate, and look forward to working to raise the voices of Hazara people in this place. (Time expired)

I rise today to acknowledge Ian Quinn, affectionately known as Quinny by those of us lucky enough to have known him. Quinny was a proud Australian and a good man. He sadly passed away earlier this month at 76. Quinny, originally from Swanbourne in Perth, lived the life of an adventurer, described by his family as reading 'like an Indiana Jones movie script', travelling the world and really living in history. It was a wild ride and a story that only he could tell. With only two minutes I can barely scratch the surface, but it was a good life that led him to his wife, Tou, in Bangkok and then brought them together to the Northern Territory in 1992.

In the Territory he bought five acres at Howard Springs, expanded his property and then bought five more at Berry Springs. Quinny continued to expand and set up Tou's Garden, a 400-hectare mango farm at Acacia Gap, 45 minutes south of Darwin, with 65,000 mango trees and processing more than three million pieces of fruit just last year. But the mango farm, although an incredible achievement of Quinny and Tou and a major contribution to the country, is not the only thing Quinny will be remembered for. Quinny will first and foremost be remembered as a loving husband, father, grandfather and friend. He'll be remembered for his commitment to family and for the friendship, love and commitment he offered. He'll be remembered for the things he loved and the impact he had as a surfie, a crayfish hunter, a self-described scuba dive junkie, a farmer and above all, in my mind, a really good mate.

Demonising those who question the Left's radical gender ideology can have severe consequences. The lies and misinformation about the motivations of conservative parties, Christian organisations and women's rights groups who have challenged the Left on their gender politics are leading to hate and violence. We have seen it here in Australia, where peaceful pro-women events are being disrupted by aggressive counterprotesters looking for a fight. We even saw a radical racist Australian senator charge the podium of a peaceful gathering here in Canberra. There is no doubt this hatefulness contributed to the violent attack in New Zealand on a peaceful women's rights event.

These lies increase the chance that very unwell people obsessed with gender ideology and confused about their own identity will commit violent acts as a way of retaliating against those they perceive as their oppressors. We have seen this in Australia and New Zealand and now with deadly consequences in the USA. A 28-year-old female has committed a mass shooting targeting teachers and children. At least six deaths have been confirmed. The alleged shooter apparently self-identified as a man. The extreme Left say this sort of person needs compassion and gender-affirming care to reinforce their delusions. These hateful attacks against concerned conservatives, Christians and women's rights groups need to stop before we see more innocent people die. To ask a question or to seek an inquiry is an act of compassion, not prejudice. Let's stop the lies and hate and start asking questions so we can develop solutions that will work and help people in need. (Time expired)

Trans rights are human rights and the trans community is a wonderful, vibrant community that should be celebrated here in Australia, and it enrages me that it is even something—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I just remind all senators that it is disorderly to interject and it's not helpful when you are interjecting and then a senator has to yell. So I remind everyone of the standing orders. Senator Steele-John, please continue.

It enrages me almost beyond my ability to articulate that in 2023 the basic human rights of trans people still need to be asserted and reasserted and defended against those who would undermine them, those who would erase them and those who would blot them out of our community.

In the week when the community was preparing for the Trans Day of Visibility in Australia, this effort by those who would erase the trans community took a very, very serious turn, as a notorious international transphobe toured this nation and many in this place sat and said nothing. In fact, some cheered them on. Some organised and facilitated the rallies and organised gatherings—shame!—while many in the community organised to push back, to stare these bigots down and to proclaim that in Australia love is love is love and that the trans community should be celebrated. With strength and unity, this community ensured that, in every single place this vile excuse for a human being and their supporters raised their heads, they were pushed back upon, and I am so glad to say that they were sent packing in New Zealand. The Greens will always fully and unwaveringly back the trans community, because trans human rights are non-negotiable. (Time expired)

Over the weekend in New South Wales we saw yet another example of how Australians have had enough of Liberal governments. They have had enough of the excuses, the scandals, the boring talking points and the deliberate attempts to divide us as a nation over issues that should unite us.

It is probably not the best idea for me to be giving pointers to those opposite on how to connect with everyday Australians, but, even after only 10 months in government watching my incredible Labor colleagues, I think there is one attribute that stands out: Australians want their elected representatives to be honest about the challenges we are facing but also to show a pathway to a better future. That is exactly what the Albanese government is doing by taking real action on climate change, getting wages moving again, delivering fee-free TAFE to create a skilled workforce for the future and tackling the cost of living with cheaper medicine and early childhood education.

Luckily, with the upcoming referendum to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament, there is an opportunity for everyone, regardless of political party, to show Australians that they are open to change and they are ready to restore justice and walk hand in hand with First Nations people on our journey towards healing and reconciliation. We are proud to support the Uluru statement, voice, truth and treaty. I call on Peter Dutton to get off the fence and support the Voice, because this should be above politics.

A huge congratulations to Chris Minns, New South Wales Labor and all the incredible Labor volunteers who have made this possible. We wouldn't be here without you.

I just remind you that you need to refer to people from the other place by their correct title.

Today I rise to draw the attention of the chamber to information recently published on a candidate that the Greens and Labor are supporting at the Aston by-election. I am deeply concerned by these reports because, if they are true, on Saturday Labor and the Greens will ask the voters of Aston to preference a candidate who has advocated for murdering infants, who has defended terrorists and who says the Unabomber did nothing wrong.

Mr Owen Miller is the Fusion Party candidate at the Aston by-election, and today as pre-poll is being conducted in that seat the Labor Party and the Greens have preferenced Mr Miller third on their how-to-vote card. They've decided that Roshena Campbell, an accomplished lawyer representing small and local businesses and an elected city councillor is a less worthy choice than this man. Today the Labor Party and the Greens have revealed what they really think of the people of Aston. They are political fodder, preference generators who should be treated with less respect than choosing their next representative.

This candidate preferenced by Labor and the Greens should be condemned for his appalling views, and Labor and the Greens can condemn those views today. For example, the candidate preference by Labor and the Greens said in a tweet:

I think that abortion is murder, but that it should be legal anyway even months after birth—sad but realistic

He supported the opinion that terrorists were right. He said that their motives are justifiable. The man preferenced by Labor and the Greens has written an article 'What the Unabomber got right' in which he writes that to consider the Unabomber a crazy person is intellectually dishonest. He has also said that he agrees with the Unabomber that many modern humans lead meaningless lives. The level of disrespect this candidate has shown for human life is only matched by the level of disrespect that Labor and the Greens show for the people of Aston. Take this man off your how-to-vote cards. Preference him last. (Time expired)

I rise today to report that my community has lost another general practice. Last week Hobart Place General Practice announced it would be closing its doors. This practice is less than four kilometres from this chamber, an eight-minute drive. It's quite literally in the backyard of this building. This is a practice that has been serving our community, and many of them feel like they have nowhere else to go. They are supporting a large number of people living with drug dependency who cannot afford gap fees and cannot afford public transport to outer areas.

We already have an extremely low proportion of GPs per capita, one of the lowest in the nation. There is one GP for every thousand people, compared to places like Queensland and New South Wales—there are 12 GPs per thousand people in Queensland and New South Wales. There's a lot of work to do in this place. I urge the government to focus on primary care.

Thank you, Senator Pocock, the time has expired. We'll move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Does Australia need to increase gas production to meet export and domestic demand while lowering gas prices?

I thank the senator for her question and her interest in this topic, of course. The important thing, I think, about, particularly, the safeguards bill and the issue of ongoing supply of gas is that we are moving to transition out of fossil fuels and into renewable fuels. In fact, you'll have heard the Prime Minister say this week that he wants Australia to be a renewable energy superpower.

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McDonald?

On relevance—I'd specifically asked about whether or not Australia needs to increase its gas production.

I will direct the minister to your question. Minister Farrell.

The really difficult thing here is that you've got to ensure there's ongoing investment in gas production, particularly in this country, while you do that transition to renewables. Now, what might that transition look like? Well, it might be hydrogen. As you know, the South Australian government is leading the way—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McDonald?

President, I don't have much time. Specifically, on relevance—does Australia need to increase its gas production?

The minister is being relevant to your question. Thank you, Minister Farrell.

If you could just let me finish what I'm talking about—

Waffle.

You might call it waffle, but it's an important issue because, to get that transition from fossil fuel to renewable fuel, we have to ensure that there's continued investment in coal and gas. It's the objective of this government to ensure that we— (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, your first supplementary?

I'm going to have another go. By how much does Australia need to increase gas production to meet export and domestic demand while lowering gas prices?

I thank the senator for her first supplementary question. Of course, between 2014 and 2021, east coast gas production increased by 300 per cent. That's, of course, despite problems, like access to the Narrabri gas supplies. Despite supply going up significantly, the prices paid by Australian households and Australian industry also went up by 420 per cent in real terms—

By 420 per cent!

Yes, 420 per cent, Senator Pratt, over that same period of time. The former government—that's the government that you were—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McDonald?

On relevance, what is the increase that is required?

The minister is addressing your question. I'll refer him to the latter part of your question, which was about prices. Minister Farrell.

The former government was warned on at least a dozen—

Honourable senators inter jecting—

You can't understand the— (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, a second supplementary?

Given the ACCC and the Australian Energy Market Operator have identified a need to increase gas production, what government policies, inclusive of the proposed safeguard mechanism, would deliver the required increase in gas production?

I thank the senator for her second supplementary question. I explained to you in my first answer, Senator, that the trick here is to ensure that there's sufficient investment in gas and coal to allow for—

So which of your policies is driving that?

The whole of government. I thought—

Minister, please resume your seat. I have Senator McDonald on her feet.

President, no tricks. What are the government's policies to provide for increased gas production?

Thank you, Senator McDonald. I'll again draw the minister to your question. Minister Farrell.

Thank you, President. Unlike the former government, we've got a rounded policy to ensure, firstly, that we secure our electricity supplies in this country—as I've spoken about many times—including putting downward pressure on electricity prices but ensuring that all of our investment policies are directed to making that transition that even your government— (Time expired)

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress that the Albanese government has made in taking the country forward on climate action?

LLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Grogan for the question and also for her strong advocacy in the area of climate policy over many years. At the last election, the Australian people voted, undeniably, for action on climate change. The Albanese government has a mandate to deliver this climate action, and I welcome the fact that we have been able to secure additional parliamentary support for the safeguard mechanism reforms.

After a decade of inaction from those opposite—that's right, they created the problem, hid the problem and then were opposed to any solutions—we can finally put Australia on a credible path to achieve net zero by 2050. Just remember that those opposite agree with net zero by 2050; they just can't agree with any credible path to get there. The safeguard mechanism, as agreed by a majority of this chamber later this week—and we are deeply appreciative of the work that has gone in from crossbench members, in working with us, including the Greens party, Senator Pocock, Senator Lambie, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Thorpe, who have worked collegiately, as is required by this chamber, to land in a sensible outcome. It really is for those opposite to explain why they dealt themselves out at the earliest opportunity, without even having a discussion.

This passage of the safeguard mechanism bill will allow policy certainty for the first time, after 22 failed energy policies. They announced 22 and couldn't deliver one of them. Business and investors have been after this policy certainty for some time. The jobs, the new industries and the opportunities that will come from having a credible path to net zero should not be underestimated by this chamber, and I thank those who have engaged willingly with the government on these negotiations.

That's great news, Minister, great news. Can the minister now update the Senate on the importance of the reforms to the safeguard mechanism to new facilities?

I thank Senator Grogan for the question. The safeguard mechanism reforms are about strengthening the economy and ensuring industry can compete in a decarbonising world. These are landmark reforms that will reduce 205 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to 2030.

Those emissions reduction will be delivered even with new facilities. Under the reformed safeguard mechanism, new facilities will need to meet international best practice. They will need to ensure emissions decline over time. New gas fields supplying existing liquefied natural gas facilities will be treated as new facilities.

With respect to the Beetaloo basin, the Albanese government is committed to working with the Northern Territory government to implement recommendation 9.8 of the Pepper inquiry. The safeguard framework will help deliver the commitment to scope 1 emissions, and, given the cross-jurisdictional nature of scope 2 and 3 emissions, the government will refer scope 2 and 3 emissions to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council.

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

Can the minister tell us what the reaction has been from business, climate and industry groups to the confirmation of parliamentary support for the safeguard reform mechanism?

I thank Senator Grogan for the supplementary question. Yes, I can. Support from senators to help pass the safeguard mechanism reforms has been widely welcomed, including from the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Industry Group, the Climate Council and the Business Council. The Business Council said these reforms were tough but achievable, and we think that's right. We have a policy which is ambitious but achievable, and the work that has gone into getting that balance right and seeking support from this chamber has been considerable. Mr Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group said:

… industry will view the announced deal with some relief that pragmatism and reasonable compromise have prevailed. Now business and government have to get on with the large task of implementing this reform and supporting transformative investments in industry.

It's a sensible response to good, sensible policy reform that those opposite have rejected and disengaged from for over a decade now.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell.

He always gets a go!

He does. The Greens yesterday stated that their deal on the safeguard mechanism has 'secured a climate pollution trigger for the first time in history'. Can the minister confirm that the government has agreed to adopt this climate trigger?

I thank Senator Duniam for his question. I can let the Greens speak for themselves on their side of the agreement. What I want to do is recognise the support that this agreement has gained, from conservation groups all the way to business groups. To give one example: Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council said, 'Business welcomes progress towards ending the impasse'—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam.

President, it won't surprise you that I'm raising a point of order on direct relevance. While I appreciate all the glowing endorsements the minister seems to have manufactured, I asked a specific question. Can I have an answer, please?

You asked particularly about the Greens position on a number of matters, and the minister has been relevant to that. Senator Birmingham.

On the point of order and your ruling, President: Senator Duniam did not ask about the Greens position. The question he asked was, 'Can the minister confirm that the government has agreed to adopt this climate trigger?'

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. The question started with the Greens. It went to the safeguard mechanism, climate pollution and a climate trigger and then it asked the government's position. I believe the minister is being relevant. I will continue to listen carefully, and, if he's not being relevant, I will draw him to the question.

Thank you, President. I can say that we're not amending the EPBC Act. What we're doing is saying that, when a project is approved under the EPBC Act, its emissions will be assessed against the safeguard mechanism targets. The two processes remain completely separate. It's about sensibly sharing information that is relevant to the safeguard mechanism scheme. The scheme does not give scope to the minister to reverse environmental approvals, and, while the government already has accountability through the Annual climate change statement, we are happy to add additional transparency and accountability to make sure the intention of the reforms is met.

I might add—I mentioned Jennifer Westacott—that the Ai Group made a comment about this deal that you don't like, Senator Duniam. They said it's a good deal. Innes Willox says it's a good deal. The treatment— (Time expired)

Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

On 3 August last year, the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen were asked at a press conference if they would agree to the Greens' demands to use the safeguard mechanism to stop certain coal and gas projects. The Prime Minister's response was, 'No, in a word.' Minister, why did the Prime Minister say one thing about this issue and then do completely the opposite?

I thank Senator Duniam for his first supplementary question. The opposition have only got themselves to blame for the position that they now find themselves in. They purport to be a party of government. They went to the last election with a policy of net zero by 2050. We are progressing that because we also took that policy to the people. We're progressing that, and at every point in the process the opposition is opposed to trying to deal with this issue of decarbonising our economy. We haven't heard a single word from the opposition about how they intend to decarbonise the economy. (Time expired)

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

On 6 September 2021, Mr Albanese said that if the Labor Party won office at the next federal election:

We will be supporting our own policies going forward at the election. We won't be in a circumstance whereby any minor party tells us what to do.

Why has the Albanese government, in signing up to a dirty deal with the Greens on the safeguard mechanism, once again broken a promise that Mr Albanese made directly to the Australian people? Why?

I thank Senator Duniam for his second supplementary question. Last week we had the opportunity to deal with the referendum machinery bill, and to the credit of Senator Hume and the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, you engaged in that process. As a result, you were participants in that process. Now, what you haven't done—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam?

President, a point of order on direct relevance. I asked him why they broke a promise. Could he tell us why?

Thank you, Senator Duniam. I will direct the minister to your whole question.

You had an opportunity this week to engage in the process. You took the decision to deal yourselves out of that process and, if you continue to do that for the rest of the term, you will be even more irrelevant than you are right now. (Time expired)

My question is to Senator Watt, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Firstly, I seek leave to table a photo of a Tasmanian devil that was burnt to death in a post-logging fire. That is a deliberate fire that burns what remains of native forests after logging.

Thank you, Senator Rice. I'll see if leave is granted. Generally—and this was explained to the chamber last week—material needs to be circulated. If you want to circulate it, I assume the minister will make a decision later.

Yes.

Thank you. Please ask your question.

Tasmanian devils are endangered, and yet logging operations, signed off by your government, are killing Tasmanian devils and destroying devil habitat. Minister, is it good enough that this destruction of these endangered species is happening under your watch?

Thank you, Senator Rice. Well, of course I can't comment on that particular issue, having not been given the courtesy of being provided with those documents before the question was asked. But what I can say is that the Albanese government supports a sustainable forestry industry, as I have said on a number of occasions. You well know, Senator Rice, that the forests in Tasmania are managed under joint state and federal regional forestry agreements, and that is the system that has been in place for a very long time. It is underpinned by strong environmental standards, and when those standards are not met then appropriate action is taken for environmental protection reasons.

As I said, I can't comment on the particular issues you've raised, because you haven't raised them with me before. But we do recognise that it's important that we have a forestry industry in Australia that is environmentally sustainable. It's one of the reasons our government went to the election making a significant commitment to expand the forest plantation estate. In fact, as you may be aware, Senator Rice, already about 87 per cent of the logs harvested in Australia are from plantation estates , with the remainder being from native forests. We do think it's important to have strong environmental standards that sit beneath those regional forestry agreements, and that is the position we will continue to take.

You would have seen that in response to the Samuel review Minister Plibersek made the point that the new national environmental standards will apply to RFAs. That position was not just accepted but welcomed by the forestry industry associations in addition to environmental organisations. I think that shows that the Albanese government gets the balance right between ensuring that we can meet our timber needs while also protecting the environment. (Time expired)

Senator Rice, a first supplementary question?

Thank you, Minister. Minister, your so-called sustainable forestry is clearly unsustainable. It's abundantly clear that in Tasmania, in Victoria, in New South Wales and in WA, logging our native forests is hurtling our threatened wildlife towards extinction, cremating Tasmanian devils in post-logging burns, and destroying habitat of swift parrots, Leadbeater's possums and greater gliders. Minister, why won't you end the regional forest agreements that allow this destructive logging?

Thank you, Senator Rice, for sharing your opinions with us. But, as I said, Labor will always support a sustainable forestry industry. We do want sustainable forestry jobs. As a society, we do continue to rely on timber based products. The jobs that the forestry industry creates, particularly in regional Australia, including in Tasmania, are important to regional economies. But forests are also valuable, for their carbon storage and their native habitats, and we understand that we do need strong environmental protections that sit beneath our forestry industry. As I said, only last December Minister Plibersek announced our government's plan to reform Australia's environmental laws, because those laws are broken. Graeme Samuel found as much in his review that was commissioned by the former government. Those laws don't protect our environment, and they're frustrating for business to negotiate. That's why new environmental standards will apply to RFAs, as they will to many other aspects of business. (Time expired)

Senator Rice, a second supplementary question?

Thanks, Minister. Minister, does your so-called sustainable forestry include allowing endangered species to be killed? If not, and given that you won't end native forest logging, what are you going to do to ensure that Tasmanian devils and other precious wildlife are protected and are not being killed in logging operations?

Thanks, Senator Rice. Well, as we have come to understand from the Greens, they always insist on action to occur yesterday, without thinking about the consequences. The Greens have no plan—we haven't heard Senator Rice or anyone from the Greens tell us where we would obtain timber products that we would need if we were to abolish native forestry immediately in the way she calls for. We haven't had any word from the Greens about where the jobs would come from to replace the jobs abolished. But that's okay, because the Greens never have to think about these things. They're not a party of government. They can go out there and make outlandish claims that do not—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

Well, there are a couple of parties who are definitely not part of the government over there, and we hope to keep it that way for a very long time. But the Greens don't have to think about these issues. What Labor is trying to do, as the party of government, is get the balance right between ensuring that we have the timber we need and ensuring that regional communities are supported by jobs, while also having strong environmental protections in place. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday the minister outlined how the former government's tricky approach to budgeting has put several government programs and services at risk after 1 July. Can the minister update the Senate on how the former coalition government's budget would have impacted the national institutions here in the capital, which house and protect our national stories and culture?

I thank Senator Walsh for her question and, again, for her support for important national cultural institutions here in the territory that, as Senator Walsh said, house and protect our national stories and culture.

Labor's budget in October last year was the first step in cleaning up the budget mess left behind by the former government—a mess left by a tricky former government that deceptively trapped the budget with $4.1 billion worth of fiscal traps and funding cliffs for essential programs and zombie measures. Since then, we've only uncovered more evidence of these traps, these funding cliffs for programs that Australians rely on and treasure. We've also uncovered chronic underinvestment in the key cultural institutions that Australians treasure and are crumbling around us—literally crumbling. And those opposite did nothing. Those collecting institutions are there to make sure the most precious items of the Australian story are kept safe, kept publicly available and kept safe forever.

But the previous government did not intend to keep these precious items safe or intact forever; the previous government only intended to care for them until 30 June this year. What did they then do after that, I wonder? Just let the gallery sink into the lake? Let the tarp on the roof of the library stay there forever, flapping in the breeze? Additional funding runs out for the Maritime Museum on 30 June, for the Portrait Gallery on 30 June, for the National Museum on 30 June, for the Bundanon Trust on 30 June, for the National Film and Sound Archive on 30 June, for the National Gallery on 30 June, for the National Library on 30 June and for Old Parliament House on 30 June. Then we have other programs, which I no doubt will come to in my next answer to one of Senator Walsh's excellent questions.

Senator Walsh, first supplementary?

I was very pleased to visit the National Library with Senator White, who took a group of us there last Monday. It is truly amazing. Minister, how would the former government's tricky approach to budgeting have put Australia's online treasure, Trove, at risk?

I thank Senator Walsh for her advocacy for Trove. It is a program I have received significant representations on since taking on the role of finance minister. Trove is one of the Australian government's most visited online services, with more than 50,000 visits a day. Yet again, like the list that I went through before, it was chronically starved of funds by the coalition. Australians from every state and territory use Trove to research and find their family history, and it's a tool that helps Australians to get to know themselves better.

Not only does Trove attract more than 50,000 visits a day; it's got over 1,500 digitised newspaper titles and 900 partner institutions. Under the coalition's proposal, under their arrangements, it will run out of funding on 30 June this year, leaving thousands of Australians unable to research family history and to undertake that important work. This is what we are uncovering line by line as we work through the former government's budget. (Time expired)

Senator Walsh, second supplementary?

Minister, as more Australians operate their daily lives online, the role of the eSafety Commissioner is becoming even more crucial. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the former government's approach to this government agency would have left Australians more at risk online, and how the Albanese Labor government will take a different approach?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Walsh. I understand why those opposite don't like this, because we're calling them out for the way they put their budget together.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! Minister please continue.

We're calling them out for the way that they put their budget together, which was having the terminating measures, having funding for a year, don't fund things properly, have a fiscal cliff and leave it for someone else to worry about. Just like in energy policy and all those other areas, kick the can down the road, and actually let somebody else deal with it. Well, we—

Was it a pretend budget?

I'll take the interjection from Senator Birmingham. We started cleaning up the mess in October—$4.1 billion. We started to clean up the mess and will continue it in this budget.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat.

Point of order, President. I can't even hear the minister's answer, and I'd like the opportunity to hear her very fine answers to these issues.

Thank you, Minister Farrell. I asked the minister to resume her seat because there is too much disorder in the chamber, particularly from the frontbench on the left side, but not only there. I would ask senators—all senators—to listen respectfully and silently.

On the important eSafety Commissioner, their important base funding of $10.3 million has never been increased since it was established in 2015, and they're facing a fiscal cliff of $23.3 million from 30 June this year. This is how they budgeted. They were budget vandals, and we're cleaning up the mess. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In recent years we've seen scandals across the Public Service—robodebt, mismanagement of procurement in Home Affairs, continual blowouts in defence projects and the recent questionable contracts in Services Australia and the NDIA. Now there is a change in government. Is this government—and, please, for the answer this government, not the last government—satisfied that the ANAO has an adequate budget to ensure Commonwealth departments are operating legally and ethically?

I thank Senator Pocock for his interest in this issue. He has gone through in some significant detail all of the scandals that beset the previous government. The budget for the ANAO is going to be the subject of budget discussions, and, of course, you'll know in a very short period of time what the budget position will be for all of these organisations. But I've had some dealings with the organisation, and we saw through the sports rorts organisation the good work that they did. Since coming to office, I've had responsibility, Senator Pocock, for the PEMS system. The PEMS system was supposed to computerise the way in which, for instance, our travel allowance payments were made. We discovered very quickly on coming to office—

Point of order on relevance, President. My question was about the ANAO, not the PEM system.

The minister has referred to the ANAO, but I'll remind him of your question.

If you'd let me finish my answer, Senator Pocock, the point of reference to the PEMS system is that I have asked the organisation to investigate why it is that a project that is meant to simplify and speed up the way in which these payments are made has not done that and continues to cost the Australian public million and millions of dollars. (Time expired)

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Has the government been approached by the Auditor-General or any ANAO executive to request additional funding?

I thank Senator Pocock for his first supplementary question. These are issues that the finance minister is particularly concerned with. My understanding is that she has received some representations in this regard. That would not be unsurprising, because in the lead up to the preparation for a budget all of these issues will no doubt be considered by not only the finance minister but the Treasurer in the preparation for the budget that is coming up in May.

Senator Pocock, a second supplementary?

It is my understanding that the ANAO has completed just 16 out of 42 reports for this financial year, so that means there are 26 to be completed in the next three months. Outside of the budget process, in principle, does the Labor government support fully funding the ANAO to ensure that it can undertake its vital task in our democracy?

I thank Senator Pocock for his second supplementary question. We in opposition relied very heavily on the work that the ANAO did. They did have the resources to do very thorough investigations, and, of course, we saw the results of the sports rorts investigations and the scandal that was associated with that, which regrettably cost Senator McKenzie her ministry, but we—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber! Order across the chamber!

Senator Smith, I'm not sure whether the minister has concluded. I will check. Minister Farrell, have you concluded your answer?

I think I have run out of time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. The February 2023 Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement reveals $67 billion of franking credits was distributed by Australian companies in 2019-20. Can the minister tell the Senate how many billions of these funds from franking credits went to Australian charities and nonprofits, and how many charities with the beneficiaries of this important and necessary franking credit income?

I thank Senator Smith for his question. I personally don't have the breakdown of franking credits that went to the organisations that you referred to. I am happy to make some inquiries to see whether or not that information can be broken down or does exist in some place so that I can come back to you with an appropriate answer to your question.

Senator Smith, a first supplementary?

Can the minister explain to the Senate, then, how the government's changes to franking credits will apply to the income-earning investment of charities?

(—) (): I thank Senator Smith for his first supplementary question. My understanding of this issue is that there is no change, but I will follow that up with the finance minister. I say this: given that we are fortunate in the Senate to actually have the finance minister present, then, of course, these questions might be better directed towards the finance minister. That would save me having to come back with answers to you. Can I suggest that it might be more appropriate in the future that those sorts of questions be directed to the minister who is responsible for them. (Time expired)

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

Noting that Senator Farrell is the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and this is the government's policy, the national charities sector is fighting to meet unprecedented demand because of the Albanese government's mismanaged cost-of-living crisis. How much will your franking credits broken promise cost Australian charities?

I thank Senator Smith for his second supplementary question. I completely reject the accusation in your question that the issues that charities are dealing with, at the moment, have anything to do with the policies of the Labor government. It's this Labor government that's putting downward pressure on the cost of living. How many times in the last week and a half have I explained the downward pressure that we are putting on things like electricity prices? How many times?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue.

They don't want to listen to all of the things. They don't want to listen to the ways in which this government is putting downward pressure, and that ought to be— (Time expired)

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training. TAFE teachers in Tasmania are paid $60,000 a year, at the moment, but the tradies who should be teaching these apprentices earn upwards of $100,000. Last week, when I asked about Tasmanian TAFEs using Cold War era Soviet Union equipment to teach electrician apprentices, the minister representing the Minister for Defence said, 'We have revitalised the TAFE industry in this country.' How does the government explain how a TAFE operating on Cold War equipment has been revitalised in the nine months since you've been in government?

I can assure you that in the Albanese government you have a government that is an incredibly strong supporter of our TAFE system. That is a contrast to what we have seen over the last 10 years, where we saw a government ideologically opposed to the public provision of vocational education and training. If you needed any evidence of that, all you needed to do was look at the—I think it was $4 billion that was ripped out of the TAFE system by the former government, until just before the election when they realised they had a political problem and started throwing a few extra dollars at it.

There is no doubt that in your home state of Tasmania, in my home state of Queensland and in every state and territory across the country, our TAFE system has paid the price of being starved of resources for nearly 10 years by a Liberal and National government that was ideologically opposed to it.

By state governments!

I'll take the interjection from the—I'm not sure which—opposition senator who tried to blame state governments. You'd be talking about a Liberal state government in Tasmania, so I'm not sure how that helps your argument. But, Senator Lambie, I agree with you that our TAFEs do need more investment. They do need more investment when it comes to capital equipment. They do need more investment when it comes to teachers' wages. They do need more investment when it comes to places for TAFE. That's exactly why the Albanese government went to the election with a commitment to do so.

I think it was out of the Jobs and Skills Summit that we committed to provide 180,000 new fee-free TAFE places for skills that are in demand. I'm sure a considerable portion of them flow to your state of Tasmania, but this is an ongoing job. Again, unfortunately, this is one of the various messes that we have inherited from the former government. It will take time to repair, but at least we now have a government in Australia that is philosophically committed to our TAFE system and to making it the centre of our vocational education and training system.

Senator Lambie, your first supplementary?

tor LAMBIE () (): Don't worry, I'm coming for the Tasmanian state government over this. Due to significant cuts by the previous government, Australia has lost the capacity to train apprentices. We all know that. Every year we've had fewer and fewer apprentices entering the workforce. Electrical apprentices in Tasmania are practising wiring equipment that isn't up to code. How does this government hope to achieve its housing policy and build much-needed homes in Tasmania with so few apprentices in the construction industry?

Again, Senator Lambie, I agree that our TAFE system has been starved of resources for far too long and that this is something that we need the current federal government to be committed to, which is exactly what we are. I might say, Senator Lambie, I have a personal interest in this now, having a year 11 son who's undertaking a school based apprenticeship in the construction trade. I want to make sure that he gets the same sort of opportunities that you're looking for kids in Tasmania to get when they're considering trade careers.

As I mentioned, our government is investing significantly in the VET and TAFE system. In fact, we're investing $921.7 million over five years from 2022-23 to strengthen our VET system and address skills shortages. That includes $864.6 million over five years to provide the fee-free TAFE places that I was talking about, as well as significant funding in infrastructure and technology to support our TAFEs.

I'm wondering if you could tell me how much money you have passed, if you have passed any, to the state of Tasmania since you have been in government. How much has actually been allocated to our TAFE system for its revitalisation, and how much money has been spent, if you know that?

I might need to come back to you with the precise figures, but what I do have to hand is the funding that's been provided to each state and territory under the new 12-month national skills agreement that we negotiated with the states and territories last year. The figures that I have here are that for that 12-month agreement, the Commonwealth contribution to Tasmania is $13.5 million. The bulk of that is for those fee-free TAFE places. I'm pretty sure, Senator Lambie, that this would be the new funding that's being provided, in addition to whatever existing funding there was in place, but $13.5 million in total from the Commonwealth, of which $9.9 million is for fee-free TAFE places, $0.5 million for student support, $0.6 million for data infrastructure, $2.5 million for the TAFE Technology Fund, tranche 1. We would expect that, as time goes on, that additional funding will be increased because, as I've said, the Albanese government understands that the TAFE system is the centre of our training system. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The 2023 Why Australia report, launched today, reinforces why there is no better place in the world to do business than Australia. How does the Australian government plan to attract further international investment, and will this investment create more Australian jobs?

This is the second question from a Tasmanian senator today, and I know you've got a great interest in this area, Senator Polley. The Albanese government has a simple message for international investors: we are open for business. Today's release of the Why Australia report highlights this fact. Our strong economy, talented workforce, renewable energy resources and open trade and investment policies make Australia one of the best places to do business in the world.

Australia's reputation as an open, stable and globally connected economy makes us a leading destination for innovative start-ups, research organisations and global investors. Investors are fuelling our growing technology sector, which is valued at over $167 billion—the third largest contributing sector to our GDP. Our supportive innovation ecosystems help spawn incredible innovations like Google Maps, wi-fi, the black box flight recorder and, of course, the terrific cochlear implant. And our growing skilled workforce means Australia is in an ideal place for international companies to expand their operations, but our government wants to go even further. We have an ambitious plan to become a renewable energy superpower and a nation that makes things again. These plans will help attract even more international investment here to Australia.

More high-quality international investments mean more, and higher paying, jobs here in Australia, with more jobs in the industries of the future and in regional Australia. Unlike the previous government, Australian jobs are a top priority for the Albanese Labor government. I call on all of those opposite to support our legislation to strengthen the safeguard mechanism. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, a first supplementary.

Minister, how has the last decade of policy uncertainty and inaction under the former Liberal National government impacted international business investment in Australia?

I thank Senator Polley for her first supplementary question. The Albanese Labor government knows that the international investors crave certainty. But, unfortunately, after a decade of Liberal National government, that's the last thing international investors got. Instead of a government that they could trust, they got a decade of infighting and political divisions which prevented any meaningful action on important matters impacting investment, like a plan to tackle climate change.

Thankfully, our government is taking a responsible approach to policy that delivers what investors need most—certainty and stability. We've ended the climate wars by charting a sensible path to net zero through our safeguard legislation. This gives international businesses a clear and predictable framework to invest in the renewable industries of the future. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, a second supplementary?

How would cross-party support for the safeguard mechanism and the National Reconstruction Fund give business certainty to help attract game-changing investment in Australia's domestic industries?

I thank Senator Polley for her second supplementary question. We're providing Australian industry and the economy with a stable ambitious policy environment for investment in the decarbonisation of our domestic industries. Yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister and the energy minister was welcomed by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group, because they know our safeguard mechanism policy will help us attract game-changing investment into the future.

Beyond providing certainty on emissions, we are providing certainty on government investment in the industries of the future through the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. If senators in this place are serious about attracting international investment in the industries of the future, I encourage them to support our legislation for a stronger safeguard mechanism and the National Reconstruction Fund.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Minister, have all of the 90 Bushmasters promised by Australia to Ukraine on 8 April and 27 October 2022 been delivered?

Thank you, Senator Van, for that question. Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that question, but I will make some inquiries after question time with the defence minister to get a confirmation of where we are on that issue. Australia, of course, has been very supportive of not only the people of Ukraine but the government of Ukraine in this terrible fight that they now have with the Russians. I don't think, outside the NATO members, there's been a stronger supporter of the people of Ukraine—

Minister Farrell, thank you. Senator Van?

Minister, you know that's not true, don't you?

Senator Van, why are you on your feet?

On a point of order—he's misleading the Senate.

That's not a point of order, Senator Van. Please resume your seat. Minister, did you wish to continue?

Yes, thank you, President. The significant scale of Australian military assistance means that we are still delivering items and will continue to do so over the coming months. For context, the scale of our support includes over 100 vehicles and heavy artillery. We've already flown more than 30 C-17 and Ukrainian Antonov flights with assistance from Australia. Delivering items from the other side of the world, of course, as you might appreciate, is an immense logistical effort, but this government is prepared to continue to do that. Of course, one of the first things that our Prime Minister did, on becoming Prime Minister, was visit Kyiv and visit the President of Ukraine. Rest assured— (Time expired)

Senator Van, first supplementary?

Minister, what promised Australian military assistance for Ukraine remains outstanding?

Again, Senator Van, I'm very happy to consult with the Minister for Defence after question time and get an answer for you on that question. Can I say this: as I started to say before, the people of Ukraine and the government of Ukraine have no greater supporters than the Australian government and the Australian people. We have demonstrated, both through the visits that our Prime Minister has made to Ukraine and by the ongoing military and other forms of support, that we continue to deplore the actions of the Russian government under Putin, and we continue to ensure that we support the people of Ukraine. (Time expired)

Senator Van, second supplementary?

Minister, given Australia's proven ability to previously manage diplomatic representation in difficult environments, like Kabul and Baghdad, will the government reopen our embassy in Kyiv?

Thank you, Senator Van. The situation in Ukraine remains extremely complex and challenging. In light of rigorous safety and security assessments, the embassy continues to operate remotely from Warsaw. DFAT is keeping this decision under review. The embassy is managing Australia's interests effectively in Warsaw, including the provision of consular services. There's nothing that we will do that seeks to politically influence this decision.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Minister, we know that low wages was a deliberate design feature of the previous Liberal government's economic architecture. It turns out that funding cliffs were also a design feature of the previous government. Minister, could you please explain to the Senate why it is so important to provide long-term funding certainty for essential biosecurity services, and how this protects our $76 billion agricultural export trade?

Thank you very much, Senator Ciccone. You would think that it goes without saying that providing funding certainty for essential government functions like biosecurity is a core government responsibility. You would think that, and, certainly, the Albanese government gets it. We understand that you need to protect the Australian agriculture industry from biosecurity threats that could wipe out our production and exports and drive up grocery costs for Australians. We understand that because we're a responsible government.

Biosecurity is critical for the future of the regions and our $76 billion agricultural export trade. Strong biosecurity means our farmers can get their produce into overseas markets, building economic resilience and creating tens of thousands of jobs in our regions. In our first budget, the Albanese government invested $134 million in new biosecurity measures like extra frontline staff, 20 new detector dogs and stronger defences against foot-and-mouth disease and other emerging threats.

Unfortunately, as we keep hearing, the Albanese government also inherited a series of budget booby traps left by a government that was all announcement and no delivery. There was short-term funding in emergency management, health, the arts, communications, national security and now biosecurity. The Liberals and Nationals were addicted to announcing programs that they didn't get around to funding.

As we keep hearing, their record of providing short-term funding for essential services like biosecurity was appalling. Because of the member for Maranoa's incompetence, and Senator McKenzie's before him, biosecurity funding falls off a cliff over the next two years. In fact, it falls by 20 per cent on 30 June this year, and another 25 per cent on 30 June next year. That's right. The funding engineered by Senator McKenzie and Mr Littleproud falls off a cliff by more than 40 per cent in two years. We are cleaning up the mess made by the Liberals and Nationals in biosecurity because that is what good governments do. (Time expired)

Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It's quite shocking to learn about that development. We know that strong biosecurity is good for Aussie farmers, important for food security and essential for trade. Minister, could you please outline to the Senate the risks to regional Australia of making short-term funding decisions for essential biosecurity services?

I would be delighted to, Senator Ciccone. There are risks. There are severe risks to biosecurity, our agricultural industry and grocery prices as a result of these short-term funding decisions that were made for biosecurity, as they were in so many other areas.

It's no wonder, with the former government's record around short-term terminating measures for biosecurity, that the National Farmers Federation consistently called out the coalition for their failure to deliver sustainable biosecurity funding. But, of course, rather than listen to our peak farming organisation and actually deliver, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, resorted to name-calling, labelling the NFF 'ignorant' and 'sideline critics'.

Fortunately, in the Albanese government the adults are in charge. We are working with our farmers, and we are working with our agriculture sector to fix our biosecurity system once and for all. In addition to the investments we made in our first budget, we're laying the foundations on traceability—something that was too hard for the National Party—to deliver a fit-for-purpose modern system to protect our livestock industries. (Time expired)

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Funding for biosecurity, it's fair to say, was left in a complete mess by the former Liberal-National government—a complete mess. What happens when governments don't plan for the future by making long-term investments in essential biosecurity? I'd appreciate your thoughts on that, Minister.

Thank you, Senator Ciccone, and of course we did begin the job of fixing up this mess in our October budget, but it is so big that it's going to take even longer.

Opposition senators interjecting—

We know that the Liberals and Nationals announced programs but didn't even fund them, even on issues important to their own constituencies.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left. Minister Watt, please continue.

Thank you, Madam President. The Liberals and Nationals announced programs, but didn't even fund them, even on issues important to their own constituencies, like biosecurity. And when you don't make long-term biosecurity investments, you leave Australia's farmers and our agriculture industry at risk.

Now, I was very concerned when I read an article this week, or in the last few days, by ABC reporter Kath Sullivan. It reported that Australia's sniffer dogs haven't been sniffing for queen bees and were not on the beat when the deadly varroa mite arrived last year. Why would that be? If you go on reading the article, it says for several years the then government had stopped training sniffer dogs to detect queen bees that might carry the varroa mite. That is the legacy of the coalition government. That is the risk they were prepared to take with biosecurity, and we have to fix this up because of these terminating measures. (Time expired)

I regrettably ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business this week.

Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business this week may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Senator Birmingham?

President, what we have here is an attempt from the government to guillotine its guillotine.

Senator Birmingham—

The government are seeking to guillotine their own guillotine because they don't want to have debate—

Senator Birmingham, I'm calling you to order.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! Senator Birmingham, I—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator McGrath and Senator Gallagher! Order on both sides of the chamber! Senator Birmingham, you stood, I gave you the call, and then you didn't call a point of order. I asked you to sit. In future, when I ask you to sit, I should not have to ask a leader of a political party to sit three or four times. The question is that the question be put.

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by Senator Farrell, be agreed to.

I move:

That a motion relating to hours of meeting and routine of business this week may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

I also move:

That the question now be put.

Senator Birmingham, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

President, can I seek clarification here. Is the outcome of the government's motion that the opposition is denied any right to speak at all to its substantial variation of hours for the rest of the week? Is that what the government is seeking to do, to deny any dissent or disagreement?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! On my left and right. Order across the chamber! The motion as moved by the minister is that the question be now put, and that's what I intend to put. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Farrell that the question be put be agreed to.

The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

FARRELL (—) (): I move:

That—

(1) Today:

(a) the routine of business after formal motions be consideration of the following bills:

(i) National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and

(ii) Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023;

(b) the time allotted for the remaining stages of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 be as follows:

(i) after formal motions—question to be put on the second reading, and

(ii) at 8 pm—questions to be put on all remaining stages;

(c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;

(d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 only;

(e) a motion to adjourn or close the debate on the second reading of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 may only be moved by a minister; and

(f) the Senate adjourn without debate at the conclusion of the second reading debate on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier.

(2) On Wednesday, 29 March 2023:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) the routine of business after formal motions be government business only;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm; and

(d) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.

(3) On Thursday, 30 March 2023:

(a) the routine of business from 9 am till 11.15 am be government business only;

(b) if consideration of the following bills has not concluded by 1 pm, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate:

(i) Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, and

(ii) Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023; and

(c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

Just a few months ago we heard how Labor was dragging its feet on delivering on some fundamental election commitments when it came to the charities and not-for-profit sector. It was dragging its feet on the Productivity Commission inquiry that was aimed at doubling giving by 2030. It was dragging its feet on its Building Capacity, Building Community policy. I'm pleased to say, under a bit of pressure from this chamber, we've now seen both the announcement of the Productivity Commission inquiry and some further detail in regard to the Building Capacity, Building Community initiatives. Why is it that, having dragged its feet on providing some certainty about what the future for the charities and not-for-profit sector might look like under this governments, it is now seeking to pull the rug from underneath those charities that earn an income through franked dividends? It's a very, very important question. It's not a suggestion, it's not a guess on my part or the coalition senators' part on what's happening here. Labor is either consciously trying to rip money from the charities sector through its franking credits plan or it's designed a policy which will inadvertently hurt charities and rip not just $1 billion but possibly $2 billion worth of franking credit revenue from charities in Australia. Is it a conscious decision or is it the consequence of poor policy design?

Senator Polley, I can see you here, looking enthusiastic at my contribution. I only have to direct you to page 52 of the Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement document. It says, at page 52:

In 2019-20, around $67 billion of franking credits were distributed by Australian companies.

Senator Polley, on a point of order?

I ask that the senator be required to withdraw his assertions that I was enthusiastic about his contribution, knowing the history of his government.

I'm not sure that he needs to withdraw that. But I would ask that you direct your comments to the house through me.

Senator Polley may not have been enthusiastic, but she was paying attention, and I thank her very much for that.

I was referring to paragraph 3 at page 52; you might like to grab it on your iPhone, Senator Polley, before you make a contribution this afternoon. It says:

In 2019-20, around $67 billion of franking credits were distributed by Australian companies. Around $17.2 billion of these were claimed by 3.1 million residents on their individual tax returns that year, with the remainder flowing to other local entities including other companies, superannuation funds and charities …

Think about the remainder, which is $50 billion. That was in the government's own document, released as part of the budget honesty process. Why is it then that this government feels that it needs to pick on charities? They were slow to deliver their election commitments, slow to deliver the Productivity Commission inquiry into doubling giving by 2030, and now, hidden at page 52 of the tax expenditure statement, we have Labor's plan to make it harder again for charities.

But just think about this for a moment: a little while ago they announced a Productivity Commission inquiry to double giving by 2030. Here, at page 52, is a plan that will make it harder for charities to earn income—Peter robbing to pay Paul. This is crazy and it is inconsistent at a time—and this is the most serious point—when Australian charities and the not-for-profit sector need to be supported in our community more than at any other time in recent history.

That includes take note. We have a hard marker with a motion previously moved in the Senate. I will put the question. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Dean Smith, to take note of answers, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I've been made aware of an administrative error that occurred when tabling the order for production of documents No. 144 earlier this month that led to certain documents not being produced. As a result, I will now table a number of additional documents, including correspondence to and from organics industry organisations and myself or my office regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of this explanation by the minister and thank him for tabling some documents, which I'm yet to actually see. I was hoping to table the letter. I hope one of these documents tabled is the actual letter from Australian Organic Ltd around standards et cetera.

I want to walk the Senate through some of the issues. This minister has form on being called over and over back to the Senate to explain to the Senate either his own behaviour or that of his department or on behalf of the Minister for Northern Australia, Ms M King, the minister he represents. On 8 February, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents, No. 144, requiring Minister Watt to table documents relating to a domestic organics standard or regulation for Australia. The order was responded to on 5 March—nearly a month later—with 20 documents.

On 8 March, Australian Organic Ltd put out a statement and published a letter sent by the minister on 14 December last year. This letter to the industry body should have been tabled by the minister as set out in paragraph (h) of the order passed by the Senate. The minister failed on 5 March, in those 20 different documents tabled in this place, to table a letter he had had in his department—in his hand—since the previous December. It begs the question of what else hasn't been tabled and undermines confidence in this process.

The majority of senators in this chamber joined together to order the government to produce documents. The casual disregard that this government's ministry has towards this chamber beggars belief—after barely 10 months in office. It's an absolute contempt of the Senate from this particular minister to not comply with an order. In 10 short months they have shown a complete disregard for the orders of the Senate, and ministers have frequently failed to comply. A pattern is emerging from this government and this ministry—this executive—whether it's on the Voice, and tabling advice about it from the Solicitor-General, as previous Labor governments have, when the public is asked to determine a referendum question, so that people can have confidence in the process, or whether it is complying with orders of the Senate around transparency and accountability.

From Minister Watt and this government, a pattern is emerging and a set of standards and behaviour is being set. This particular minister has been called to provide explanations for not responding to questions on notice and for failing to comply with orders of the Senate no fewer than six times. This will be the seventh in just 10 months. In just 10 months, ministers across this government have been called to give explanations nine times. Is this the standard the government wants to set? Senator Roberts pointed out that the last time Labor was in government they complied with just 35 per cent of orders. This should be a red flag because it shows that colleagues on the crossbench are equally dissatisfied with ministers in this place for the wilful disregard that they've shown for the standing orders and for more than a century of procedure and convention.

Ministers will do well to remember that not complying with an order of the Senate may lead to censure, contempt or other penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Standing order 206 outlines the penalty for wilfully disobeying the orders of the Senate as 'a senator may be ordered to attend the Senate and may be taken into custody.'

Further resolutions on parliamentary privilege, agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988, that deal with matters constituting contempt are at section 6:

Without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the Senate declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts.

Ministers must establish that the public disclosure of documents in question would be prejudicial to the public interest. This minister did not do that. In fact, he forgot to put a document pertinent to the order, essential to the order, that he'd had in his possession for in excess of 2½ months, with the 20 other documents. And, now, he casually stands up and says, 'Oh, I forgot one.' Well, what else have you forgotten? The Senate is left questioning what other orders has this minister and others wilfully not complied with. The government is now on notice. This minister is now on notice. The Senate is not a game, some casual sandpit where you can toss around toys and sand in each other's eyes and walk off unscathed. This is a serious chamber. It is here to hold the executive government to account. It is something we all, whether you have had the privilege to serve in executive government or not, take seriously. The first 10 months of this government and this executive shows that the Anthony Albanese government has a casual disregard for the orders of the Senate, for the role of the Senate, in our democracy. We ask them to do better on behalf of all Australians.

r DAVEY (—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (): I too rise to take note of the failure of the minister to comply with an order of the Senate and the absolutely pathetic explanation that he has provided as to why and how this happened without a skerrick of contrition on his part.

It is a serious and damning reflection on Australia's minister for agriculture when he fails to support a very important agricultural industry which is keen to grow their markets both domestically and internationally. But, then, when the industry is trying to work with the government and the Senate is trying to work with the government, we are hampered because of the minister's carelessness, disinterest or worse, because the motion today and the reason for calling the minister revolved around a legal technicality of what has or hasn't been tabled. But, when something as glaringly obvious as a letter to industry from the minister, which I hope he's tabled—like my colleague Senator McKenzie, I haven't yet had a chance to see what was just tabled—but I am aware that this letter exists because the industry has told us this letter exists. The industry has now published this letter on their website. When something as glaringly obvious as that didn't make it into the original pack of tabled documents, it begs the question what else is being hidden and it begs the question about the minister's commitment.

I also want to raise the minister's apparent oversight as an assessment of where this industry sits in the minister's order of priorities and the importance that his department places on it, be it by the minister's instruction or just his omission. We're not talking about a little niche industry here; we're talking about an industry that in 2021 contributed over $2 billion to the Australian economy. We're talking about the opportunity for that industry to grow and for that industry to have easier access to overseas markets. To do so they need regulation and accreditation, and this is what the industry has been calling for and working towards.

The global market size of organics is estimated to be worth over US$208 billion, and it is estimated to grow to around US$654 billion by the year 2030. Our lack of domestic regulation in Australia is undermining efforts by that industry to improve market access for organic exporters. Our target markets quite rightly question the equivalence of our organic production systems when there is no domestic organic regulation in place to provide them with some assurance of our market integrity. Only domestic legislation will provide the regulation required to adequately protect organic consumers and producers and provide the assurance needed for improved export market access. Australia will miss out if this Labor government doesn't get off its proverbial and realise it has made a serious error of judgement in putting this important industry on the backburner.

I've been chasing answers for the organics industry through Senate estimates and through my advocacy since I was elected. I was pleased in 2020 when the then minister for agriculture, David Littleproud—someone who didn't ignore the industry—commenced investigating whether the regulatory framework for our organics industry was fit for purpose. Minister Littleproud established an industry working group and, through the process, had the department commission a consultation paper and cost-benefit analysis to be conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The coalition commitment at the time—and it was ongoing, right up until the last election—was that we were working towards implementing a domestic standard through the industry working group. I asked the industry whether that working group had been reconvened since the election and I was told by them, 'No.' I followed this up with questions to the department in November last year, when I asked questions about the PwC report, and the minister's department advised they were considering the findings and would engage across the Public Service and maybe with industry, as needed, in providing advice to government.

Fast forward to March, and I followed up again at estimates and was told, 'We're still waiting.' It was also confirmed to me by the department that the industry working group had not met since the election and had not seen the PricewaterhouseCoopers report or the consultation reports that had been bandied around other bureaucratic agencies. When I asked when something might be coming, I was advised: 'The policy consideration is ongoing. I don't have a time frame I am able to provide to the committee at this point.' That shows to me that Minister Watt does not support an organic standard, which he announced in the media in March this year. Minister Watt's reason relates to the cost-benefit analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I'm not sure how much of it we've seen, but I'm advised it is flawed; it was a cost-benefit analysis of only the domestic industry and didn't consider the export potential of the industry.

Minister Watt, I don't understand the lack of conviction or interest in an industry that has the potential for such growth. The industry doesn't understand the disrespect you have shown them. The organics industry has been calling for the implementation of a domestic organic standard for years. I know we're a party that likes to have light-touch regulation, but this is something the industry has been calling for because, with a domestic organic standard, the industry can actually compete in export markets with a regulated and accredited product.

I urge the government to work with industry and sort out issues about cost benefit and other concerns that may have been raised in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report so that industry can grow and prosper. There is an existing industry working group that you can consult with to make sure that you smooth over all of those issues that were, apparently, raised. When we see organics producers not being able to access markets like South Korea because we don't have an equivalent standard that other governments can compare their domestic regimes to to make sure that there's balance, shame on us, particularly when we've got an industry that is so willing to work with the government to ensure that we can do so.

The disrespect the minister has shown by his laissez faire attitude to producing the documents is reflective of his treatment of the industry. I implore him to change his attitude towards the organics industry, change his attitude towards orders of the Senate and start commencing the real work.

I rise to take note of the explanation given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. From the outset, let me say that our government is keen to work with the organics industry to open new trade pathways for organic products.

You've had nine months.

Yes, and you had 10 years. I want to put a few facts on the table about this issue, given some of the hyperventilating that we've seen from the senators opposite. Between 2020 and 2022, the former government commissioned a number of reports into a potential domestic standard for organics. These reports were not released publicly by the minister at the time, and no changes to domestic regulation were ever made by those opposite. Are we surprised? No. However, on 6 March, Minister Watt released the two cost-benefit analysis reports that the organics industry had been seeking access to. These reports examined the costs and benefits of a regulatory scheme and are now posted on the department's website for all to see. The most recent cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the former coalition government found there is no option for regulating the domestic organics industry that is supported by industry and that shows a net positive impact over 10 years. It also indicated that the costs of extra regulation, as requested by the industry, may be too big a burden for smaller players in the industry to withstand and may end up being passed on to consumers at the check-out. An additional report commissioned by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has found that 53 per cent of consumers do not search for the phrase 'organic' when purchasing a product and 48 per cent of participants stated that the government certification would not change their buying habits.

We acknowledge that the organics industry has done a lot of work on this issue and that those involved are keen to see progress, but we must be methodical in our approach, as the introduction of an economy-wide domestic regulatory scheme would be a significant change to our regulatory landscape. This would no doubt come with a range of potential benefits and opportunities for the sector, but it would also come with costs to business, which would then be passed on to consumers. At a time when consumers and businesses are facing cost-of-living pressures, we're conscious of our responsibility to not add to that burden. I really am surprised that the Nationals are so keen to add to household budget pressures. I note that, given the opportunity to release this information under the previous minister, they chose not to.

The Albanese government has been in constant contact with the industry throughout the whole process. The minister was pleased to attend the industry's inaugural conference last year and has met with producers and industry bodies. We will continue to engage meaningfully with the organics industry going forward. In the meantime, the Albanese government is working hard to increase export opportunities for the organics industry and non-organic agricultural products. The Australian government is committed to expanding and diversifying access to export markets in support of industry's ambition to grow the agriculture sector to $100 billion in farmgate value by 2030. Australia exports around 72 per cent of agricultural production each year. This is expected to be worth $74.8 billion in 2022-23.

We are committed to supporting our exporters to pursue opportunities in new markets through our Trade Diversification Plan. This plan has four main pillars: (1) delivering an export market and product diversification strategy; (2) building economic ties with India, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister's recent trip to India, where we agreed on two-way agriculture trade to provide new market access for Australian Hass avocados to India and access for Indian okra to Australia; (3) revitalising our trade with Indonesia; and (4) supporting greater regional trade cooperation. This is a good plan that acknowledges our place in the world and brings amazing agricultural products and industry to the world stage, where they belong.

This is something Minister Watt has consulted on and brought the industry along with us on, because that is how Minister Watt runs his portfolio. He's consultative, he listens and he is extremely hardworking. I think it was Senator Sterle who was in this place yesterday talking about the feedback he had been getting from the agricultural industry in Western Australia about how Minister Watt has conducted himself in this role, and that feedback is entirely positive. I can say the same from a Victorian point of view.

Not so long ago, as I mentioned in question time last week, I was up at Tatura in northern Victoria, near Shepparton, at the International Dairy Week conference. The overwhelming message I got from that industry conference was how glad the dairy industry is that there is someone in the agricultural portfolio who listens to them and asks them what they think. They recognise how hard Minister Watt has worked from the minute he was sworn in, particularly when, most recently, Australia's biosecurity was threatened, particularly for industries who deal with livestock, where there were many concerns about incursions of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia. This happened literally as soon as we got elected, and Minister Watt immediately got to work. Now we have a biosecurity strategy that is going to set up Australia for the long term.

I might say that this occurred despite a decade of multiple National Party agricultural ministers dropping the ball on biosecurity. I was shocked to learn in the last round of Senate estimates how the Nationals had cut the detector dogs program at Australian airports, with fewer and fewer dogs picking up fewer and fewer threats. I was even more shocked to learn that, under the National Party's watch, the detector dog program wasn't training dogs to detect queen bees, and that has been the case since 2015. As the minister mentioned in question time, and as was recorded on Landline this week, queen bees that are brought into the country are not detected by dogs, and they're at serious risk of carrying varroa mite, a nasty parasite which devastates honey bee populations and destroys hives. And guess what: after the Nationals cut the detector dog program and the detection of honey bees at Australian ports of entry, we've had an incursion of varroa mite—cause and effect, one might say.

At the end of 2022, after Senator Watt became minister, the detection of queen bees was added back to the list of things that dogs smell for. But of course, because of how irresponsible the coalition was, it was too late. We now have varroa mite incursions that we are still dealing with in New South Wales. As we have talked about in many question times, often this is a case of cleaning up the coalition's mess after the last decade, and this varroa mite incursion is a huge mess. It costs money, it costs livelihoods and it costs industry productivity. Minister Watt is cleaning this up and fixing it, and for that he needs to be congratulated.

We have also heard revelations about the coalition basically bankrupting the entire department of agriculture. The department's been forced to cut staff, limit programs and cut travel because the former National ministers refused to do anything about the fact that the costs of delivering the department's essential services and policy responsibilities outstripped the revenue coming into the department. Imagine that, letting the very department that symbolises your reason to be in politics go bankrupt because you haven't got the time—or can't be bothered—to do anything about it for a decade. It's completely shameful coming from the party that claims to be there for rural and regional Australia, as we've heard yet again today.

But someone who is not lazy, who does the job, who works hard, who addresses the issues when they come to him is Minister Watt. I back Senator Watt's explanation here today and, for all the reasons I have mentioned, I believe him to be entirely responsible and effective as a minister. And he will continue to be more effective than the sum total of the coalition ministers who preceded him. The motion moved today is nothing more than a silly attack on Senator Watt for the very reason he's doing so well in his job and the Nationals can't handle it.

Finally, on the matter of organic standards, we acknowledge the organics industry has done a lot of work on this issue, and those involved are keen to see progress. We are being methodical in our approach, and I have full confidence in Senator Watt as the minister who will make sure there's a good outcome and it is achieved.

Senator White referred to the need to consider the feedback with respect to the minister for agriculture's performance. Well, I have some feedback. This feedback isn't from a senator in this place; this feedback is from the industry. This is what the organics industry is saying about Minister Watt: 'Minister Watt ignores evidence, experts and industry with captain's call on domestic regulation'. That's what the industry's saying. There's some feedback for Senator Watt. 'Minister Watt ignores evidence, experts and industry with captain's call on domestic regulation'. There's some feedback in relation to this very issue which we're debating today in relation to the minister's failure to promptly comply with an order for the production of documents that was issued with the order of this Senate—an important check and balance in our Australian democracy.

After Australian Organic Ltd actually referred to a document which the minister had not tabled in compliance with the order for the production of documents, after that had been disclosed and brought to this chamber's attention by the industry, we said: 'Hang on, they're referring to a document from the minister and the minister didn't include it in the order for the production of documents. What's going on?' We called the minister in to provide an explanation. And then? The minister came into this place and said: 'Oh, an administrative oversight. I forgot a few documents.' They just happened to be some of the most relevant documents in relation to the subject for the order for the production of documents. 'I forgot a few documents. Sorry about that.' It doesn't exactly instil confidence in relation to this minister and his ability or desire to comply with orders for the production of documents.

We've seen it here before, in this term. Six times before this occasion, the minister has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this place to explain why he hasn't provided documents which the Senate has requested and ordered. The process should not work that way. The minister and his department, the minister's responsible for the department, should comply with the orders of this Senate. The minister should comply.

These documents being tabled today—this is where they are; we got them half an hour or so ago—are the most important documents in relation to this particular order for the production of documents. They're not collateral documents; they go to the very heart of the issue. These are the documents. 'Administrative oversight.' 'We forgot to give you the most important documents.' They're the most important documents identified in that order for the production of documents. Give us a break. Goodness me! It's absolutely astounding.

And this is about opportunity. As Senator Davey said, the organics food industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars and has the potential to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars. If Australia does not have an appropriate standard to give our own Australian consumers confidence with respect to whether or not a food is truly organic to an appropriate standard, that is going to hurt our ability to export, to take advantage of the opportunities overseas with respect to organic food. That's what we're talking about here. This is an opportunity worth hundreds of billions of dollars. It is not good enough, in relation to an issue this important, for Minister Watt to ignore evidence, experts and industry with a captain's call on domestic regulation. Those are the words of the industry itself, not my words.

With respect to the reports that Senator White referred to, the biggest omission in those reports is that they don't actually consider the export opportunity itself. They're only looking in a very limited way with respect to the internal regulation of the industry, without taking into account the great opportunities for organic food on the world stage. I'm proud that, in the previous term, I served in a government which set a target of $100 billion of agricultural production and exports. Australia is leading the way in terms of agricultural production and exports. We need to do better on this. The minister needs to lift his game and listen to the industry in relation to the opportunities in this space.

Question agreed to.

A point of order, President. Can I seek some clarity as to why we aren't resuming the debate to take note of questions from question time. Standing order 72 provides for 30 minutes of debate following questions without notice, for a motion to take note. I know we have just dealt with the motion that provided for Senator Watt to attend at 3.30. That motion indicated that Senator Watt's attendance and a subsequent take note debate shall have precedence over other business until determined, but it did not extinguish any other business. President, I would have interpreted that motion to provide for an interruption to the take note of questions and not for an early closure of that debate.

I'll take some advice. I'm reliably informed that we have consistently applied the term 'hard marker', that all business then ceases and moves on to the next part of the business day. The only time that we don't do that is when we use the form of words 'the debate is interrupted for a first speech'. Other than that, it's always the hard marker that applies. Taking note ended at its usual time.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Ayres from 28 to 30 March 2023, on account of ministerial business; and

(b) Senator Bilyk from 27 to 30 March 2023, for personal reasons; and

(c) Senator Wong for today, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senator:

(a) Senator Thorpe from 24 to 27 March, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following general business order of the day be considered this week at the time for private senators' bills:

No. 5—Defence Amendment Bill 2020—Wednesday 29 March 2023.

Question agreed to.

I give notice that I am withdrawing notice of motion No. 179 standing in my name for tomorrow.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

by leave—I present a non-conforming petition about bringing back nurses, physios and allied health in aged-care homes.

I remind senators that yesterday two votes were deferred relating to business of the Senate notices of motion moved by Senator Roberts and Senator O'Sullivan. I understand it now suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now.

If there is no objection, I will deal with the first vote, on the proposed reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee moved by Senator Roberts. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I believe the noes have it.

An honourable senator interjecting—

There was only one voice there, Senator—

Senator Roberts, it's disorderly to call out from your chair. Senator Roberts.

Thank you, President. We called for a division last night, and it was to be deferred till today.

You still need two voices.

Do the Liberals know that? Because they're supporting the motion.

Senator Roberts, please don't call out across the chamber. There weren't two voices, so please resume your seat. I will put the question again. We're dealing with the deferred motion as moved by Senator Roberts, a reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee.

I will now deal with the closure motion moved by Senator Brown. The question is that the question be now put.

I now am putting the question that the motion proposing a reference to the Finance and Public Administration Committee moved by Senator O'Sullivan be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by

27 September 2023:

Barriers to consistent, timely and best practice assessment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and support services for people with ADHD, with particular reference to:

(a) adequacy of access to ADHD diagnosis;

(b) adequacy of access to supports after an ADHD assessment;

(c) the availability, training and attitudes of treating practitioners, including workforce development options for increasing access to ADHD assessment and support services;

(d) impact of gender bias in ADHD assessment, support services and research;

(e) access to and cost of ADHD medication, including Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme coverage and options to improve access to ADHD medications;

(f) the role of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in supporting people with ADHD, with particular emphasis on the scheme's responsibility to recognise ADHD as a primary disability;

(g) the adequacy of, and interaction between, Commonwealth, state and local government services to meet the needs of people with ADHD at all life stages;

(h) the adequacy of Commonwealth funding allocated to ADHD research;

(i) the social and economic cost of failing to provide adequate and appropriate ADHD services;

(j) the viability of recommendations from the Australian ADHD Professionals Association's Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline for ADHD;

(k) international best practice for ADHD diagnosis, support services, practitioner education and cost; and

(l) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 30 March 2023, all documents held by the Australian Federal Police mentioning and/or in relation to a GoFundMe page titled 'Supporting the SASR family'.

Not ice of motion altered on 27 March 2023 pursuant to standing order 77.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 relating to a referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, to change the reporting date to 7 December 2023.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 December 2023:

The operation of Commonwealth Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, with particular reference to:

(a) the resignation of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Commissioner and the resulting impacts;

(b) delays in the review of FOI appeals;

(c) resourcing for responding to FOI applications and reviews;

(d) the creation of a statutory time frame for completion of reviews; and

(e) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee already has a full workload. The senator is encouraged to have a meeting with the Attorney-General to discuss any concerns about the FOI system that can be considered by government, rather than adding unnecessarily to the workload of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. The government is committed to the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to ensure it meets its objectives of improving open government, and the Attorney-General would welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue with the senator.

The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 2, as amended by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, I now withdraw general business notice of motion No. 206 standing in Senator Bragg's name.

by leave—I move:

That the question on Senator Roberts's general business notice of motion No. 207 be put again.

The question is the motion be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I now withdraw general business notice of motion No. 208 standing in my name.

At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that order for production of documents no. 193, relating to an email and document concerning proposed superannuation changes, was agreed to by the Senate on 22 March 2023;

(b) notes that the order's deadline of 9.30 am on Friday, 24 March 2023 was not complied with; and

(c) requires that the order be complied with by midday on Wednesday, 29 March 2023.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 209 standing in the name of Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

In accordance with the order agreed to earlier, I will now put the second reading questions on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I'm dealing first with the Greens amendment on sheet 1896. So the question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1896 revised, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1914 revised, circulated by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated second reading amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the success of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation's work will depend in large part on the existence of a sustainable pipeline of eligible projects at a stage suitable for funding through the Corporation, and

(ii) the work of the Corporation will reach across multiple portfolio areas and have a long-term, transformative impact on Australia's economy and industrial base; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) commit to exploring additional policy mechanisms to provide Australian startups access to finance as they navigate the path to commercialisation, and

(ii) establish an office for the Corporation in the Australian Capital Territory to foster collaborative engagement with other key government bodies and private corporations and access to a skilled local workforce".

The question now is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1916, circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated second reading amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) commit the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation to ensure that free, prior and informed consent of the First Nations Traditional Owners of the land has been followed and obtained by proponents and grant applicants when investing in major projects with environmental impacts,

(b) reflect this commitment in the Corporation's investment mandate; and

(c) commit to engaging closely with First Nations peoples impacted by the Corporation's investments over the course of the Corporation's work".

Question negatived.

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

I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government's amendments to be moved to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and, by leave, I move amendments (1) to (8) on sheet UC140 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 16), after the definition of Australia, insert:

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets means:

(a) if:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution was communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement in June 2022; and

(ii) that nationally determined contribution has not been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;

the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in paragraphs 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Climate Change Act 2022; or

(b) in any other case—the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or

(ii) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time.

(2) Clause 17, page 15 (after line 16), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) In performing its functions, the Board must have regard to:

(a) the desirability of transforming Australia's industry and economy by:

(i) growing or improving Australia's industrial capability; or

(ii) improving Australian industry's ability to pursue value-adding opportunities; or

(iii) supporting a long-term improvement in Australia's economic diversity; and

(b) the desirability of attracting private sector finance or investments into the priority areas of the Australian economy; and

(c) Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and the desirability of supporting decarbonisation; and

(d) the desirability of creating secure jobs and a skilled and adaptable workforce; and

(e) the desirability of enhancing Australia's resilience against supply chain vulnerabilities; and

(f) the desirability of encouraging the commercialisation of Australian innovation and technology.

(3) Clause 17, page 15 (line 24), omit "Subsection (4) does not", substitute "Subsections (3A) and (4) do not".

(4) Clause 75, page 46 (after line 25), after paragraph (1)(c), insert:

(ca) in the case of the Corporation—environmental, labour, social and governance matters to be considered by the Corporation in relation to:

(i) the Corporation's investment functions; and

(ii) the Corporation's investment powers;

(5) Clause 75, page 47 (after line 5), after paragraph (1)(f), insert:

(fa) in the case of a designated subsidiary of the Corporation—environmental, labour, social and governance matters to be considered by the designated subsidiary in relation to:

(i) the Corporation's investment functions being performed through the designated subsidiary; and

(ii) the designated subsidiary's investment powers;

(6) Clause 82, page 51 (line 8), omit "and".

(7) Clause 90, page 56 (line 5), after "delegate to a", insert "senior".

(8) Clause 90, page 56 (line 10), after "function to a", insert "senior".

We thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the many other stakeholders, including members of this place, who have provided their valuable feedback on this bill. In response to this feedback, the government is moving these amendments to the bill.

Firstly, in respect of functions of the board, while investing to diversify and transform Australian industry is the core objective of the NRF, we also recognise that there are several important considerations that the board should have regard to in performing its functions. That is why we are proposing further amendments to clause 17 of the bill to make it clear that the board must have regard to a number of other important matters that have informed our design of the NRF from the outset, transforming Australia's industry and economy, attracting private sector investment and not crowding it out, meeting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reductions target and decarbonisation, creating secure jobs and a skilled and adaptable workforce, enhancing resilience in Australia's supply chains, and encouraging the commercialisation of Australian innovation and technology.

Our proposed amendments to clause 75 require the corporation to develop policies on how environmental, labour, social and governance matters need to be considered in relation to its investment functions and powers and also its subsidiaries. This represents modern investment best practice, and we thank those stakeholders who raised these issues. By introducing these amendments, the government reaffirms that one of the most important outcomes of the National Reconstruction Fund will be the creation of secure, well-paid jobs in these key industries that build upon our national strengths. The fund will revitalise and strengthen our local supply chains to ensure that we have our own industrial and manufacturing capabilities.

By legislating the core functions of the board to include the creation of secure jobs, we are emphasising one of the biggest benefits that our domestic manufacturing industry provides and will continue to provide: opportunities for Australians to make a meaningful, high-skilled contribution to our nation's future. Nearly 85 per cent of the jobs in manufacturing are full-time.

When we proposed the National Reconstruction fund in March 2021, Labor said we were doing this to rebuild secure work. When he announced the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, itself a huge investment in manufacturing capability in the US, President Joe Biden said that it would 'lift up American workers and create good paying union jobs across the country'. 'Union jobs' is universally recognised language for secure, safe, high-skilled, well-paid jobs. That is exactly what this government is doing with our National Reconstruction Fund, creating jobs that communities can build around, especially in regional, remote and outer-suburban Australia. We're investing in businesses so that they can invest in their workers, developing the skills that we need to meet any challenges that the future may have in store. But we're only going to get there by working together—government with business and their people. We all have a common goal: an Australian industry that will lead the world. This can only be achieved if everyone has a voice, which can be heard, and a stake in the success of our collective effort.

Finally, in response to comments by the scrutiny committee, we also propose a minor amendment to clause 90, to make clear that the CEO may only delegate their powers and functions to senior staff. This amendment brings the clause into line with the CEFC Act and will not significantly change the operations or the functions of the NRF. I therefore commend the bill to the Senate.

The opposition will not be supporting the amendments moved by the government. I do know that, unfortunately, this is going to be subject, the committee stage, to a guillotine that is going to kick in at 8 pm. I know that Senator Hume, Senator Scarr, Senator Brockman and, possibly, Senator Rennick—we have a number of issues that we would like to endeavour to get through in the short time, just under three hours, that we have available.

In terms of the board appointments minister, as the bill currently stands, section 19(1) states that the ministers will, by written instrument, appoint board members. There is, however, no process stated for which these appointees will be selected from. Could you take us through what process the minister would enact to ensure that merit based appointments do occur?

nator FARRELL (—) (): Thank you, Senator Cash, for your question. There will be the normal processes that would apply in the consideration of board membership. Obviously, there will be merit based board appointments. When you're dealing with something like the National Reconstruction Fund, emphasis will be on people with those skills that might best be capable of implementing this much needed and very ambitious project.

When you state that normal processes will apply, could you please outline to the Senate what those normal processes are, and, when you say that the minister will ensure people have the appropriate skill set, how is that going to occur?

The minister will select from a list of candidates prepared by the department, the skills matrix taking into account the qualifications listed, in the bill, at section 19(2).

Will the skills matrix be made public?

That skills matrix is already in the bill.

In terms of the board positions themselves, will they be publicly advertised?

No.

On what basis will they not be publicly advertised?

The government has decided not to publicly advertise them.

On what basis did the government make the decision—given all of the comments that were made, in particular, prior to the election in relation to transparency and integrity by this Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and other members of the government—that you will not be publicly advertising these positions?

Senator Cash, you really have got a cheek, talking about transparency, when the former prime minister did not reveal to the Australian people that we're—

Come on. It's a straight question.

If you don't realise, Senator Henderson, the seriousness of what the former Prime Minister did—and, I might say, some of the comments of your current female shadow bench. The former government didn't even tell the—

Senator Farrell, please take a seat. Senator Henderson?

I have a point of order. I would ask Senator Farrell to withdraw that denigrating comment about women on our side of the chamber. Women on our side of the chamber have been subjected to some pretty horrendous treatment in recent days. I would say to Senator Farrell that it's most improper to reflect on women on this side of the chamber in that way. I would ask him to withdraw it.

My comment was a compliment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I was listening carefully to the backwards and forwards. Senator Farrell, you got pretty close to some concerns that were raised, but it might help the Senate if you just explained. Finish your sentence, because you didn't quite finish it. Then, if necessary, I'll ask you to withdraw, but at this stage I won't.

I was complimenting women on your side of the bench, but if there was anything I said I unreservedly withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash.

We've established that—despite statements by the now government prior to the election and, in particular, even in relation to the political commentary that the minister himself made, in answering this question, to reflect on the previous government—under this government, in relation to the National Reconstruction Fund board, the board positions themselves will not be publicly advertised. Can you, then, advise whether board positions themselves will undergo a selection process, including interviews?

My understanding is that there will be discussions with the candidates but not formal interviews.

When you say, 'discussions with candidates', have any of these candidates already been identified?

No.

When you say, 'discussions', who will be having those discussions?

The department.

CASH (—) (): Will the minister or the minister's office be involved in any of the discussions?

My understanding is the advice will go from the department to the minister, and then the minister will ultimately make a decision.

nator CASH (—) (): Is the minister bound to accept the recommendations from the department?

No.

Does that mean that the minister does not, in any way, need to accept the recommendations put forward by the department and, on that basis, the minister could themselves put forward their own selection?

I've already explained how the process is going to work. There's a matrix. The department will propose some names, which will come to the minister. The minister will make a decision post the receipt of those names.

It's very important to understand because, obviously, there are other processes that will be gone through when these names are announced. The minister is not bound to accept the recommendations put forward by the department. I just want to confirm that means that the minister may themselves appoint anyone they like.

This is standard practice, in terms of the appointment of board members. What will happen here is consistent with what typically happens in the appointment of board members, both under the former government and under this government.

Under section 19(2) it lists the experience or expertise relevant to being appointed. How was the conclusion reached that a person with experience in industrial relations was a qualified person for the purposes of a bill that establishes a quasi bank for the manufacturing sector?

I thought that would be an absolutely fundamental feature of a project as large and as ambitious as the National Reconstruction Fund. As I said in the address I gave at the start, today, we're looking for well-paid jobs in this sector—high-skilled, well-paid jobs—and I would have thought the wonderful unions, in this country, which have contributed over decades to the creation of those wonderful well-paid jobs would be a very important feature of any board that sets out to be as ambitious as this particular project.

With all due respect, I didn't mention unions, so I do find it interesting that you jumped straight to that. I actually mentioned 'qualified persons' as defined in the act. But it is interesting, and the problem I have with your answer and your natural inclination to talk about unions is in relation to the next question I have for you. Why was the decision undertaken, then, to include section 19(2)(1) where it states 'any other experience the minister considers relevant is a suitable parameter for a board appointment' given, in particular, you said there was a skills matrix?

I don't think there's anything for you to be concerned about there, Senator Cash. The minister is a very, very sensible fellow, and if there are skills that he believes are vital for the success of this project—let's understand, this is an ambitious project. It's all about building things in Australia again.

I was here, very sadly, on the day that your government, Senator Cash, pushed Holden out of this country. This government is about rebuilding Australia, making up for 10 years of neglect in this sector and getting back secure, hopefully full-time, jobs for Australian workers in what will be one of the great transformative projects of this country. Rest assured that the fellow to do that is Mr Husic, the minister who's looking after this. I have the greatest confidence that the board he will select will have all the requisite talents and skills and abilities to make a success of this National Reconstruction Fund.

Before I give the call to Senator Cash, we'll finish here with a couple of lines of questions, and then we'll go to Senator Allman-Payne.

In terms of the minister's comments—with all due respect, Minister, I know you're enjoying this. I know you're smiling. That's fine, I accept that, but for the fact that you are now a minister of the Crown representing a government.

I remember when I was on the other side, and you used to ask questions and you demanded and expected an answer. We would do our very, very best to provide you with those answers. It is a great shame that you now treat the opposition—and the people of Australia, quite frankly—with contempt. You do not even make an effort to try and answer any questions, whether it's in question time or whether it is now in the committee stage, where we're subject to a guillotine in two and a half hours—two hours and 40 minutes—to try and understand better the way this bill will work.

Based on the answers you have given to me: there is no process, basically, stated for which these appointees will be selected from, other than there's a skills matrix; the government will make recommendations to the minister; and the minister doesn't have to regard any of those recommendations. You've admitted that, with experience in industrial relations, that goes straight to unions. Any other experience—well, the good news is that the minister is the right person for the job and we should just trust them! So, basically, in relation to this line of questioning, this leaves board positions open to anyone the minister may choose. Is that correct?

I thought I was being exceptionally helpful by providing all of the information, and I completely reject your categorisation of my answers as not answering your question. There are provisions in the bill as to how appointments will be made. There's a skills matrix. There will be a selection process done by the department—not by the minister. Names will come up to the minister, and a final process will be taken to select the best possible board members to run what is a very ambitious National Reconstruction Fund in this country. I don't think there's anything in all of that which is inconsistent with past practices in terms of significant boards and appointments of these types of boards. More particularly, I don't think I could be any clearer about how that process is going to work.

I'd like to begin by thanking the government for the constructive approach that they've taken in relation to the negotiations for the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I hope that we can continue in that vein as we proceed to discussing upcoming bills on housing. The Greens took a policy for a manufacturing fund to the election, and we strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia. The amendments that the Greens secured in the House will ensure that the National Reconstruction Fund will be focused on creating high-quality jobs across a diverse economy, particularly in regional Australia. We note that the previous government did try and use public money through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund coal and gas. They were unable to do so because of the guardrails that had been put in place on that bill by the Greens and Labor. We are pleased that we now have the same assurance that the NRF won't be used to fund the climate crisis.

With respect to the government's amendment on sheet UC140, I wish to indicate that the Greens will be supporting that amendment, which, amongst other things, means that the board must have regard to the Paris climate targets when making investment decisions. This is absolutely essential in a climate crisis. We also welcome the additional amendments, which require the board to have regard to the desirability of creating secure jobs. A thriving industry base relies on the reversal of the trend of casualisation and insecure work. We support viable industries driven by good jobs and powered by renewables. At this point, I want to foreshadow that we are also in support of the amendment by Senator Pocock on sheet 1895. We are not just in a climate crisis; we are also in a biodiversity crisis, with the sixth mass extinction underway. The Greens welcome this amendment from Senator Pocock and any consideration the NRF has towards biodiversity loss.

During the inquiry into this bill and also into the National Energy Transition Authority Bill, the importance of taking a regional development approach to decarbonising our economy and the value of creating renewable energy industrial precincts were relayed by a number of witnesses. My question to the minister is: Can the minister confirm whether the NRF will be able to create industrial green energy hubs within existing industrial areas? If so, can the government provide examples of places where renewable energy industrial precincts could be developed using funds from the NRF? For example, would the NRF be able to invest in the development of green energy hubs in existing industrial zones in places like Gladstone, Townsville and the Hunter Valley?

Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne, for your contribution and thank you for your support and sensible engagement with the government about this project. I think your party's role is in stark contrast to the opposition's in how one might go about getting constructive changes that you'd like to see into important pieces of federal legislation. I should congratulate you on the approach you have taken in these discussions—open-minded and genuinely interested in making the NRF bill better and securing positive outcomes for manufacturers and industry sectors that add value to Australian resources.

I've seen the report that the senator references, and the point I would make is that coordination across government is going to be vital to the success of this terrific project. With the NRF, Rewiring the Nation, Powering the Regions as well as other government investment vehicles, like the North Australia Infrastructure Facility and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, we are confident that we're getting the right tools in place. That said, of course the NRF board will determine investment decisions independently.

I wish to take the minister back to the fact of how this board is going to be appointed. You made reference to the fact that the department will be picking people to go onto the board, not the minister. Will the department be advertising for people who may have the experience and knowledge to apply for the positions to put their names forward?

Senator Hanson, thank you for your question. I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying there, so I'll just run through the process again. The bill itself sets out a skills matrix for the sorts of people the government believes are necessary to make a success of this new body. The department will then make an assessment about the people who have those relevant skills, and then we'll submit to the minister a list of the people they believe have the appropriate skills to do that job.

Minister, I find it very hard to believe that the department will have on hand a list of names of people they think will fill this role. All jobs must be advertised, and on a fair and democratic basis, people should be able to apply for these positions. Where are the names going to come from in the first place? Someone's got to present those names. It's got to be either the minister or the department that is going to present these names. Why isn't this opened up to the best eligible people around the country who may apply for a position to work on the board? Why isn't it open for anyone to apply for this?

There's nothing unusual about the process that's going on here, Senator Hanson. It's a practice that governments adopt in the selection of the best people whom we believe will be able to do the job of setting up this body and making a success of it. I think you need to reference particularly section 19(2) of the bill, which sets out a matrix of the sorts of skills a person is going to need in order to do the best for the country in terms of this new body. I think when you look at that matrix, and you see the range of skills people will be looking for, you should have some confidence that the department will be able to find the people who are best suited for this job and give that list of names to the minister to make a final determination as to who will be the best people in this country to do that job.

SON (—) (): We have in place laws in this country whereby corporations, organisations and businesses must advertise a job. They can't just put forward a list of names of people who want it—that is against the law. You must open it up for people to apply for these positions. Why do you think that you, or this government or this new department, have the right to put in place people who you think will do the job? That's not complying with the laws of the nation, which you impose on corporations and other businesses. They have to follow the guidelines; why do you think that you can do whatever you want to do?

I don't believe that what is being proposed here, with due respect, is contrary to the law. I think it's worthwhile noting that Treasury does keep lists of people who have the skills and abilities to meet the skills metric in the bill, and of course it's the bill itself that is setting out the criteria for the selection of these people. Anybody who's interested and thinks they have the skills can no doubt make contact with the department and say: 'Have a look at me. I have these qualifications.' As I said, Treasury has a list of people who have the skill sets in the skills metric that is set out in the legislation, and I am very confident that the best possible people—and the most skilled people in the country to build this ambitious new organisation—will it be selected. When you see the final list, you'll have great confidence that the best people in this country have been selected to do that job.

Tell me: would the people whose names are on that list be union reps?

I hope so. I hope there are some union representatives on the board, because a key objective of this new fund is to ensure that we get high-paid, well-skilled jobs, but being on the list doesn't mean that the department is going to select them. The department may decide that a union official or, for that matter, a representative of business, with skills in industrial relations, may not be the best person to be on the board. Let's wait to see that process work. I'm very confident that the department will come up with the best possible list of people who can do the job that we want them to do to start rebuilding Australia.

High-paid, secure, important, innovative jobs in this country is what we need. We've had 10 years of inaction under the previous government. We're about to start building things in Australia again. Of course, you're well aware of the submarines that we're going to start building in due course. This government wants to build things in Australia, like we used to do—we used to build terrific Holden cars in Elizabeth, in South Australia, and we used to build terrific Toyota cars in Victoria. We want to start building things in Australia again. Ultimately, the people who are going to be on this board will oversee that process, and I think that, when you see the final list of names, you'll be satisfied that we've selected the best and most qualified people in this country to run this fund.

Has the minister conferred with industry, particularly the manufacturing industry, on the impacts of high energy prices, which will result from the government's deal with the Greens, and whether that deal will impact the projects that would potentially be eligible for this fund?

I'm not sure how you link the passing of this bill with the issue of higher electricity prices. As we discovered after we came to office, your government failed to disclose increases in electricity prices. This government is one that's been putting downward pressure on electricity prices by caps on gas and coal. I pay tribute to the outgoing Premier of News South Wales, Dominic Perrottet. To his credit, he was prepared to join forces with the federal government to assist in pushing that downward pressure on electricity prices.

This is not a government that's interested in higher electricity prices. We want prices lower. We don't keep them a secret. We don't keep them under wraps. We don't change the dates for disclosure of them like the previous government does. We acknowledge the problems that are existing right around the world, at the moment, as a result of the terrible war between Ukraine and Russia.

We believe in putting downward pressure on those prices, but there's nothing in this bill that would, in any way, see an upward pressure on electricity prices.

Thank you, Minister, but what I asked was whether the minister has conferred with industry since this deal was done, potentially, on the impacts of this deal on the manufacturing sector and on the projects that might be eligible for this fund. If you have consulted with industry, I'd be interested in knowing who in industry you have consulted with since the deal was done. If you haven't consulted with industry, I'd be interested to know why you haven't consulted with industry.

Knowing Minister Husic as I do, he's a great one for consultation. I don't think we've ever had a minister, in this space, who consults more and talks with manufacturers about all of the issues that are currently affecting them. I don't want to reveal confidential cabinet discussions, but I think I can say this: there's no finer minister, in this space, who is prepared to go in to bat for manufacturers.

I'm sure that he talks to them about a whole range of issues, including electricity prices. In fact, I'm told that they frequently complain that the previous government completely ignored their issues around rising electricity prices, and it's a breath of fresh air that we have a minister who's prepared to sit down with them, listen to their concerns and take some action. I might say, those stakeholders that you refer to are very supportive of the legislation, and it's a pity that the opposition have decided to deal themselves out of this process.

I have already gone through what I thought was a very good process, last week, in dealing with one piece of legislation that I know you were involved with directly, Senator Hume. Some of your colleagues could take a feather out of your cap and follow the very sensible way in which discussions should take place. We do want the opposition to be involved in these processes. The constant negativity and saying no I don't think does you any good.

It's so annoying, isn't it? It's so frustrating!

It is frustrating, Senator McKenzie, that you sit there and just keep saying no. If you really wanted to be an alternative party of government—I'm starting to think, now, maybe things are so bad and you've lost so many elections that you've lost any hope of ever becoming an alternative party of government. But if you are serious about being an alternative party of government then one of the criteria for that is engaging with the government of the day. Look at what the Greens did. They didn't just roll over.

Minister, resume your seat. Senator Brockman?

The minister is performing as he does in question time. He is not talking about the bill. He is going off on a flight of fancy of his own. Could you please bring him back to the question and back to the bill?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Brockman. Minister, I ask you to turn your attention towards the question again.

Thank you, Chair. I was just offering some helpful advice to a party that's just lost, finally, government in every mainland state in the country. They've lost federal government. I'm just trying to offer them some advice on how they might want to re-engage, firstly, with the stakeholders who have a vital interest in this issue and who are supporting the government in this regard. I've been answering your questions, plus I'm trying to give you some advice—some help. I'm just trying to help you.

Just for the minister's information, I have dozens of questions here that we would really like the answers to, and I am still on question 1, and I've asked it three times now. I will go back and remind you that the deal with the Greens was only done yesterday. So can you confirm not that Minister Husic is a good fellow, because I'm sure he is, but whether he has in fact consulted with industry since that time—since the deal was announced—or potentially whether industry was consulted before the deal was announced? If it was consulted, either before the deal was announced or since the deal was announced, who in industry did the minister consult? Was it a peak body? Was it an individual manufacturer? Was it somebody that would qualify for this fund? Who is it that the minister has spoken to since this deal was done?

The minister frequently talks to stakeholders in this industry and gets their views. For instance, only today I was talking about the Minerals Council about their views on a range of pieces of legislation.

I think you're conflating two different pieces of legislation here, with respect, Senator Hume. This is not a piece of legislation about the safeguards. We'll move to that later on this evening, after we've passed this legislation. We're here talking about the National Reconstruction Fund, and I personally think that your questions ought to be directed to that fund and not conflate it with another issue.

Thank you very much for that patronising response. Yes, you're correct. There was a deal done with the Greens on the safeguard mechanism, and that will have an effect on energy prices. There is no doubt about that, and I am asking you whether that effect on energy prices—which will not put downward pressure, as you continue to insist, but will in fact put upward pressure on energy prices—will have an effect on the National Reconstruction Fund, on the manufacturers that are going to potentially participate in the National Reconstruction Fund and potentially on those who may be eligible for this fund. Has the minister spoken to any of the manufacturers or peak bodies about whether higher energy prices resulting from the deal that your government has done with the Greens are going to affect their eligibility for the National Reconstruction Fund?

The deal that we have done with the Greens to decarbonise our economy and set up the safeguards for the future move to zero emissions by 2050 is going to put downward pressure. We're talking about moving to the cheapest form of energy, which is renewable energy. That's solar energy. You had a policy that you took to the last election of zero emissions by 2050. We've started the process—

Point of order, Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Do you have a point of order, Senator Hume?

I've asked this committee four times whether the minister has spoken to anybody in industry about whether higher energy prices caused by the deal that your government has done with the Greens is going to affect their eligibility for this fund.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hume, you've asked about energy. You've asked about deals with the Greens. I can't direct the minister on how to answer, but I draw him to your question.

I don't think I can be any clearer, with all due respect, Senator Hume. The agreement with the Greens in respect of safeguards is going to have downward pressure. We're talking about decarbonising our economy. We're talking about a switch to a cheaper form of energy. You don't have to agree with that proposition, and I can see Senator Hollie Hume—

Opposition senators: Hollie Hughes.

Hollie Hughes. I simply don't agree with your proposition.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Resume your seat, Minister. Yes, Senator McKenzie?

Point of order: we have limited time in committee tonight to look at $15 billion worth of taxpayer funding. Can you—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKenzie, what's your point of order?

On relevance, please draw the minister to the question. If he doesn't have the answer, it's okay. He can sit down.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator McKenzie. It is a wide-ranging discussion and I have drawn the minister to the question. The minister has the call.

Thank you, Chair. Look, I can't be any clearer: I don't accept the proposition that the arrangement with the Greens pushes up electricity prices. The whole point of the agreement is to put downward pressure on electricity prices. But this is not—

Tedious repetition!

I could say the same about your questions, with due respect, Senator McKenzie. I can't give you the answer that you want because I don't accept the proposition that you're asking me about.

Has he spoken to anybody? That's all it is.

Look, the minister frequently speaks with stakeholders in this area. He's a bloke who goes out of his way to consult in a way that your government, when you were in office for nine or 10 years, never ever did. This is a bloke who consults, who listens and who brings that knowledge to the cabinet table.

I note the earlier substantial number of questions around the board and the appointment of the board. In that vein, I would like to foreshadow that the Greens will be supporting the Jacqui Lambie Network amendment on sheet 1886, which expands the board membership from six to eight members. Given the range of fields set out in clause 19, we feel that the board will require an expansion in the number of people on the board. This will make it far more likely that the board will be comprised of members who have a greater depth of expertise, credibility and standing in their respective fields.

In that vein also, we will be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment on sheet 1909, which reduces the term of the board appointments from five to four years and brings forward the independent review from five to three years. We think that reducing the term of board appointments from five to four years does create the right balance between consistency and flexibility. We also think that bringing forward the independent review from five years to 2026 provides the opportunity to ensure that the fund is operating, as intended, reasonably soon after it becomes fully operational.

Also, in relation to the board, the Greens will be opposing the Jacqui Lambie Network amendment on sheet 1885. This is the amendment that requires the board to submit a strategic direction overview to the minister every five years and gives the minister the capacity to reject or not approve the strategic direction of the NRF. The Greens think that in making it a requirement that the minister approve the strategic plan given to them by the board actually gives undue influence to the government of the day over the NRF and we think that it's important that the board can maintain a level of independence from the government. Hence, we won't be supporting that amendment.

Can I thank Senator Allman-Payne for her clarity in respect of those amendments and indicate that the government will be supporting, as you are, the Lambie amendment to increase the number of members of the board from six to eight.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1895, standing in my name, together:

(1) Amendment (2), after paragraph 17(3A)(c), insert:

(ca) Australia's international obligations and commitments under the following:

(i) the Convention on Biological Diversity, done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992, as in force for Australia from time to time;

(ii) the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by the Conference of the Parties to that Convention at Montreal on 19 December 2022, as amended from time to time;

(iii) any subsequent global biodiversity framework to which Australia is a party, as amended from time to time; and

(2) Amendment (2), at the end of subclause 17(3A), add:

Note 1: The Convention on Biological Diversity is in Australian Treaty Series 1993 No. 32 ([1993] ATS 32) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (https://www.austlii.edu.au).

Note 2: The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Frameworkcould in 2023 be viewed on the website of the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.cbd.int).

This amendment seeks to ensure that in performing its functions the independent board of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation must have regard to Australia's international obligations and commitments. This amendment simply seeks to make explicit that the board will consider our international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and any subsequent global biodiversity frameworks in which Australia is a party.

Shamefully, biodiversity loss is something that Australia has been grappling with for decades. We go to conventions, we sign up to non-binding agreements, then we come back home and we don't take the steps necessary to actually look after our incredible biodiversity. As a megadiverse country, this is something that we should be putting in every new body that we set up. There should be a regard to Australia's biodiversity and the impacts that any activities will have. We've got a shameful record. We have a government that is committed to no new extinctions. I believe it's a commitment that is welcomed by Australians, but that's going to take real work from all of us to actually deliver on that.

I commend this amendment. I believe it really is in line with what the government have promised the Australian people that they will do. I would urge the Senate to support it and to begin to better look after this incredible continent that we get to call home.

I thank Senator Pocock for his contribution. Protecting biodiversity is extremely important to the Albanese government. Australia's history is full, as he said, of too much disrespect for and destruction of the biodiversity of this great country. We must, and we will do, better. However, the best place for these issues to be dealt with is in the EPBC Act, and that's why the government will be opposing this amendment.

Minister, I quote from the IMF's staff report on the report of Australia's article IV consultation around the inflationary risks that currently exist in Australia from the IMF point of view. It says that implementation of below-the-line 'activity through newly created investment vehicles (National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation, and Housing Australia Future Fund) should … be phased judiciously, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided'. Do you agree with that statement?

I thank Senator Hume for her question. Much of the current inflationary pressure is caused by global factors, including the supply chain restraints and, of course, the terrible war between Russia and Ukraine. Investments of the corporation will build capability, resilience and productivity in Australian manufacturing, improving the supply side of the economy and helping to place downward pressure on inflation, so I think we would suggest the opposite of what you were suggesting. Further, corporation investments will be phased over time and avoid adding to the current demand pressure.

Minister, perhaps you might want to correct the record. Are you suggesting that the government disagrees with the IMF on what the inflationary risks for Australia in fact are and this fund is in fact creating an increased inflationary risk for Australia? Do you disagree with the IMF?

I'll repeat what I said a moment ago. We believe that, in the way in which we've drafted and designed this particular fund, it will put downward pressure on inflation and of course do all the other terrific things that we say it will do, which is to create well-paid jobs in industry and start rebuilding this country.

Minister, if you are disagreeing with the IMF, can I then ask: is it your contention that you or your government are more qualified to assess Australia's fiscal position than the IMF?

It's our contention that, after the nine years of neglect of Australian jobs where you sat back and essentially pushed companies like Holden out of this country, we're going to start rebuilding this country. We're going to start making things again in this country and we're going to do it in a non-inflationary way. All of the things that you failed to do in your nine years of neglect in government, we intend to repair. We intend to start that process of rebuilding and creating good, well-paid jobs in this country.

Can I confirm then, Minister, you believe that the IMF is wrong?

I believe that this bill is not going to add to inflation, and, on the contrary, is going to start rebuilding the Australian economy. We're going to start making things in this country—things like Senator Pocock would have been familiar with in Elizabeth in South Australia, where we used to make terrific Holden cars. We lost all that under your government. We're going to start rebuilding this country, and we're going to start rebuilding it with good, well-paid, innovative jobs.

Minister, in relation to the amendments that were moved by Mr Bandt in the House, has the department asked for modelling from the department as to the impact that these amendments will have on industry?

I thank Senator Cash for her question. The NRF is first and foremost a manufacturing fund. It is designed to grow our capacity and our capabilities to ensure Australia can once again be a country that makes things. It was never intended to fund the extraction of minerals in any form. It was never intended to log timber in any form, so, when the Greens asked us to confirm that by including it in the legislation, we were happy to put it in.

Has the department briefed the minister on the impact these amendments would have on the forestry industry—and I do note that Senator Duniam is in the chamber—in particular in Tasmania?

I answered that question in my previous response.

Can the minister please elaborate on prohibited investments and how far reaching these would be down particular supply chains?

As I said previously, the fund won't fund extraction or logging.

Again, could I ask you to elaborate on what prohibited investments are? Perhaps we'll tackle that part of the question first. Take me through what prohibited investments are, and once we've established that we can then go on to the impact, potentially, on supply chains.

I can only repeat what I've said earlier, now on the third occasion. It won't fund extraction and it won't fund logging.

The bill doesn't include grants to individuals or companies as a means of financial accommodation. In terms of the policy rationale for this, on what basis was this ruled out?

I thank Senator Cash for her question. The corporation will be a commercial entity, generating a positive rate of return over time. Returns on investments will be available for future investment by the corporation, ensuring that the corporation can continue to provide targeted, transformative finance. Providing grants would erode the corporation's capital value over time and would undermine the corporation's ability to deliver returns.

What consideration has been given to the fact that the NRF will operate alongside the CEFC and the EFA?

Sorry—I just got slightly distracted by my colleague. Would you mind repeating that question?

What consideration has been given to the fact that the National Reconstruction Fund will operate alongside the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Export Finance Association?

Thanks, Senator Cash. There are a number of existing investment vehicles across government, each with distinctive functions and powers tailored to the delivery of specific policy outcomes, and you've just mentioned a number of them. The corporation, guided by the investment mandate, will work closely with other investment bodies, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, to avoid unnecessary duplication.

In terms of the three NRF priority areas—renewable and low-emissions technologies, value add in resources, and defence capability—that will actually overlap with the existing CEFC or, for example, the EFA funds or facilities. How is that going to be addressed in practice?

It's a manufacturing fund. As I referred to in the previous answer I gave you, the aim is to avoid duplication. Those other funds that you were referring to won't operate in this space, and this fund won't operate in their space.

You said that that is the aim, but I need to understand: how is it going to be addressed in practice when the fund is set up?

That will be part of the job of the board, I guess, to establish the guidelines to do that and for the people who are going to be working in this space to ensure that what I've just said, which is no unnecessary duplication, is in fact carried out. Again, I have great confidence that that will in fact be the case.

Now we've established it's going to be the job of the board, as you said, to establish the guidelines. When will the board commence establishing the guidelines?

When they're appointed.

Just in terms of the fund itself, will it provide an investment brokering service for proponents and other investors to complement and leverage the NRF funding?

To answer that question I think we need a little bit more information, particularly about what you mean by investment brokerage.

How about we start at the other end, then. What is the process for withdrawing NRF funding from a proponent? In what circumstances can the NRF funding be withdrawn?

That would be a commercial transaction, and, obviously, being a commercial transaction, there would be terms in that agreement that would determine how that issue might be dealt with.

In terms of the proponents themselves, will the NRF assist proponents through other regulatory processes—for example, if they are in a medical or resources priority area such as the TGA approvals or EPA approvals?

No.

In terms of the NRF and what it purports to support, we have transformation and diversification in Australian industry. When we talk about transformation and diversification, what range of metrics will be used when measuring transformation and diversification in terms of the achievements?

RELL (—) (): These will all be matters for the board to determine upon its appointment.

I want to return to some questions on forestry, if I may. In relation to the general inclusion of forestry, what level of consultation occurred with the industry to include what has been included in this program?

The minister consulted very widely in the lead-up to this legislation coming forward, and he made sure that he consulted with all of the people that needed to be consulted with before the legislation was introduced.

Specifically, was the forestry industry consulted on the provisions that are being brought forward in this bill?

The minister consulted broadly and widely to ensure that the bill reflected what industry wanted, and the bill that you have before you today does reflect all of those matters.

I can only infer from that that there wasn't a direct consultation. You're saying 'broadly', but it's not clear to me whether there was actually a conversation between, for example, AFPA, the VFPA or the TFPA and the government around what's in and what's out here. We've already had a bit of a discussion about the prohibited investments and the Australian Greens press release that I read into Hansard the other day. I know it was touched on before as this amazing level of cooperation that we're seeing between Labor and the Greens, which is alarming for industries like forestry and more generally, but—

An honourable senator: It's a power-sharing government.

It's a power-sharing government, yes, but I would be interested to explore these prohibited investments criteria. The three areas that have been outlined are the extraction of coal or natural gas, the construction of pipeline infrastructure and the logging of native forests—I think I heard you say earlier that that was never the intention of the government. Was it added in later as an internal amendment, after a consultation draft or something?

The NRF is first and foremost a manufacturing fund. It is designed to grow our capacity and our capability to ensure that Australia can once again be a country that makes things. It was never intended to fund the extraction of minerals or the logging of timber in any form, so, when the Greens asked us to confirm that by including it in the legislation, we were happy to put it in.

It was never the intention—it's now in legislation. If I look at the legislation, in section 63—I've already listed those three areas there—in subsection 4 it says:

native forest does not include a plantation.

plantation means an intensively managed stand of trees that is created by the regular placement of seedlings or seed.

Subsection 3 expressly prohibits financing of native forest logging. Is plantation logging covered? Is that something you can seek funding for under this bill?

The word I've used is 'logging', and I think it's fair to say that that includes the sorts of logging that you're precisely asking questions about. I don't think I can be any clearer that it's not the intention of the fund to fund logging.

I'd ask the minister why the bill only specifically references the logging of native forest and not plantations as well. If the government's intent is to—and you're being clear in your contributions here. Why the legislation, unless it was just something to appease certain people one government shares power with? I don't see why you'd exclude that if it is something for which financing can't be approved.

This was the amendment that the Greens asked for, but it was never intended that the legislation provide for logging in any form.

So, despite the legislation prescribing only prohibited investment as financing of logging of native forests, the government is now indicating that it is also prohibiting investments in logging of plantation? If the minister can confirm that that is the case, when was industry consulted on that particular development?

This was all about value-adding manufacturing in this country—the sort of value adding that your government failed to do but that this government is intent on doing. We intend to proceed to rebuild manufacturing in this country, and we're going to be doing it by the use of this fund.

I had a specific question. When was industry advised that logging of plantation forestry is also a prohibited investment, given that we are now being told that that is indeed the government's position?

I have now indicated on numerous occasions that Minister Husic consulted widely before bringing this bill to the parliament. As I said, I don't think there's been a minister who has been so consultative with all the various groups that needed to be consulted about the legislation. I think what you see before you today is a reflection of a bill that matches the needs of this country to start manufacturing again, to start rebuilding the manufacturing sector that was so badly treated by the former government. I've mentioned what happened to Holden in South Australia and the disgraceful way in which the former government chased that company out of this country.

This is a bill designed to reverse the nine years of neglect. It's designed to rebuild manufacturing in this country, and it's been done in opposition but now more particularly in government as a result of extensive discussion with all the stakeholders who needed to be consulted before this legislation was presented to parliament.

I move:

That the committee now report progress.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the chair is that progress be reported.

We currently have before the chair the motion moved by Senator David Pocock, which is an amendment to the government amendment originally moved on sheet UC140.

We've established the fact that there was no consultation with the industry because there was no confirmation that specifically occurred. I think we've also established the fact that there was no advice to industry that plantation logging was excluded, even though it's not expressly listed in the legislation, which is disturbing. I want to come to the line of questioning that Senator Cash was going down with regard to the supply chain. The logging of timber, native and plantation, is prohibited, according to the government. Can I ask about the value-add, and we'll start with native forestry? Could you please step me through what applications might be supported or funded under this program for value-add for native forest timber?

I thank Senator Duniam for his question. The priority areas declaration will be a disallowable legislative instrument made jointly by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Science. The government has previously announced the seven areas of the economy that will be the basis of the first declaration to be made soon after the bill receives Royal Assent. The details of each area are still being considered, taking into account the comprehensive consultation conducted by the government in late 2022 and early 2023. Given that the government has not yet made a final decision on the drafting of the declaration, it is not possible to rule in or out particular projects or technologies.

We don't know what will be supported, other than this general nebulous concept that there will be value-adding job-creating projects supported. Are there any other programs within government that would support the forestry industry in the same way that this program is envisaged to do?

I thank Senator Duniam for his question. The government is delivering a record $300 million in measures to the forestry sector that will support the expansion of the plantation estate, modernise our timber manufacturing and build forestry workforce skills. These measures include $112.9 million for the Accelerate Adoption of Wood Processing Innovation Program fund—that has had strong interest, I might add, with 84 applications received by the 28-February-2023 deadline; $86.2 million over five years from 2022-23 for the Support Plantation Establishment Program, which is fully subscribed and will support the establishment of at least 36,000 hectares of new plantations; $100 million for the Australia-wide National Institute for Forest Products Innovation; and $10 million for the Forestry Workforce Training Program. We're also taking steps to remove the water rule, which will provide further incentives for plantation and farm forestry participation in the Emissions Reduction Fund.

I have two questions flowing on from that. Firstly, I presume that anything the forestry industry is eligible to apply for under the programs you've just mentioned, particularly the forest and wood innovation grant programs, would preclude them from applying under this program. Could I have confirmation of that? Additionally, Labor made a commitment prior to the election that it would reserve $500 million for agriculture, forestry and fisheries out of the National Reconstruction Fund. How was that figure arrived at?

It wouldn't necessarily prohibit an application under this fund. What was your second question there?

A commitment was made by the then opposition, now government, that $500 million out of the NRF would be reserved for agriculture, fishing forestry. I'm wondering how you arrived at that dollar figure, given the lack of clarity around consultation and the sorts of projects that would be eligible.

I reject the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation. I think I've made it very clear that Minister Husic has been one of the great communicators of this country and this government, and he extensively consults and discusses with the manufacturing industry in this country. As to your specific question, that was a commitment that we made in the lead-up to the last election. We've honoured all of our election commitments. We are bringing them to the parliament. It's just a pity that the opposition has decided not to engage and progress what the Australian people voted for, namely an Albanese Labor government. It's a pity those opposite have decided not to try and progress what we took to the Australian people and not to have sensible input to improve the legislation where they think it is deficient, as the Greens have done. They've come forward and said, 'Look,' as Senator Pocock has done. He's looked at the legislation and said, 'Look.' Yes, he's giving me a big smile there—happy fellow!

A little wave as well.

Yes, we'll give him a wave. There we go—a little wave. So the opportunity is still there, if you really seriously want to be a party of government ever again. I know Saturday's result—I was looking at you all today and yesterday, at the sad faces when you'd started to think about wall-to-wall Labor governments, state and federal, and no prospect of resurrection for the party. For the born-to-rule party to be in a situation like that—

But there's still a chance, Senator McKenzie. There's still a chance if there are some people on the other side who can push the issue of engaging with the government about our policies and if you have ideas that you think can improve this fund and do what we want to do, which is to revitalise manufacturing in this country. Recognise that the last nine years were wasted years in this respect. Recognise that you've now got an opportunity to make up for those nine wasted years. Make a contribution by supporting the proposition that we start building things in this country again. Do it constructively. Take the opportunity. If you're that interested in the forestry industry in Tasmania, come and discuss with us how you think any of our policies—and I've listed a whole host of them before, for very significant investment in the forestry industry—can be improved. Come and talk to us about it. Our door is always open. We like Tasmania. We love going down there. Talk about forestry products! I went to the Wooden Boat Festival a few weeks ago, and it was a terrific event. There were record numbers at that event. So come and talk to us. If you've got suggestions, start engaging. This negativity, this idea that you sit back there and say no to everything, is not going to endear you to the Australian people.

IAM (—) (): That was highly unusual, I have to say—quite the ramble around the backyard there on those issues. There are a couple of things. One is that you can't improve the unimprovable, this bill, which is why we have arrived at the position we've arrived at. The alarming pattern that seems to be emerging here is that the Australian Labor Party go to their natural bedfellows, the Australian Greens, and do deals, as they do.

One thing I want to point out, colleagues, as I ask a question shortly about the prohibited investment list, was something that struck me as passing strange. Here we are on one day dealing with two bits of legislation. One is the one before us now, about revitalising the economy and creating manufacturing jobs—well-paid ones that are highly skilled et cetera, to refer to the minister's comments. Then, on the other hand, we have a bill coming up which is going to tax the life out of manufacturing in this country. So the government says: 'Oh, we're going to help you get jobs. We're going to bring industry here. We're going to restart manufacturing, but we're going to tax the life out of it.' How does it work? What's going on with this inconsistent, incoherent government policy?

What could possibly go wrong?

That is a great question, Senator Scarr, and I'm sure you'll be able to ask the minister in a moment what could possibly go wrong. But I want to ask my final question, because I know other colleagues have questions too. The final question I have is with regard to the prohibited investments list. We stumbled upon one thing which is also prohibited, and that is plantation logging. Are there any other sectors of the economy, any other minerals to be extracted or any other types of investments that are prohibited that are not expressly listed in the legislation? If so, I think it would be a great time to tell the Australian community what they are, because I don't want them finding out after applications open and suddenly they can't apply. I think you need to be upfront with Australia.

I thank Senator Duniam for his question. I've already answered that question. I think I've answered it two or three times. Please refer to my previous answers.

Minister, with respect to the deal that Labor has done with the Greens this week, 84 per cent of the 215 facilities that will be penalised under this deal are located in rural and regional Australia. Can you outline for me how this fund will assist them to deal with the sustainability issues as a result of your deal with the Greens on the safeguard mechanism?

(Quorum formed)

Minister, given the deal that you've done with the Greens to severely impact 215 facilities across the nation, 84 per cent of which are located in rural and regional communities—not just providing national product and benefit but underpinning the social and economic wealth of these regions—I want to understand how this fund will now be used, and if it is envisaged to be used, to sustain those companies and facilities that are going to be severely impacted by the safeguard mechanism deal that you've done with the Greens, and how will that interact? Will there be specific weighting to those businesses that have been severely impacted?

How are you going to ensure the sustainability of the existing manufacturing facilities in rural and regional communities, given the deal you've done with the Greens will see higher energy and electricity prices in this country? You've said it all afternoon, but 'downward pressure' with a hand movement doesn't make it happen. The laws of physics still apply. The laws of economics still apply, and what all serious economic commentators are saying about the deal that you've done with the Greens is that it will see an increase in energy prices. Your own head of the AWU, the fantastic young Daniel, absolutely states it is critical to maintain employment in advanced manufacturing in this country whilst we move towards a more low-emissions environment.

I want to understand the interaction and how the NRF is envisaged to change as a result of the deal that you've done, and the consequential impact on rural and regional advanced manufacturers.

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. One thing we certainly do agree on tonight is what a terrific fellow Mr Daniel Walton is and what a very fine organisation the Australian Workers Union is.

They support nuclear too, Don!

Well, let's deal with one issue at a time. Mr Walton runs a fantastic union and is always focused on one thing in my experience, and that is creating good, well-paid jobs for his members. I'm sure that he will continue to do that as we rebuild manufacturing in this country.

Two things about your contribution, Senator McKenzie—you're conflating two things. We're dealing here with a piece of legislation that is going to see, for the first time in nine years, the rebuilding of manufacturing in this country. Perhaps I shouldn't repeat it again and again and again, but I will. I sat and watched in this parliament what you did to car manufacturing in South Australia at the Holden factory at Elizabeth. It was shameful. You hounded that company out of this country and you did the same in Victoria with Ford and Toyota. Let me tell you, there were plenty of workers who lived at Elizabeth—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Every country in the world subsidises their car industry, I might add. Every country in the world subsidises their car industry. You can't look at one industry.

What I was going to say to you, Senator McKenzie—and it will come as a shock—is that lots of those people who worked at Holden at Elizabeth actually lived in the country. They lived in the places like Kapunda, like Clare, like Freeling, like Balaklava. They might have been working in an outer Adelaide suburb, but they in fact were living in the country. They benefited from manufacturing. This fund will benefit people in regional Australia.

Can I say this: the corporation will strategically invest in higher value adding projects in priority areas. A number of these priorities have a strong regional presence, such as the value-add in resources, the value-add in agriculture, defence and renewables. It's anticipated that this will drive scale and growth, creating higher value jobs in regions. Investments, including the targeting of emerging opportunities, will help regional areas diversify their economies and workforce opportunities.

I saw over the period of the last two or three years what your government did to rural industries. Let's have a look at what you did to the barley industry, as a result of the bans by China. Let's have a look at what you did to the wine industry over that period of time. The Nationals claim—of course, the Nationals are not in government anywhere in the country, as far as can I tell. Is that right?

Not even in Tasmania.

Not even in Tasmania! At least the Liberals are in government down there. But you're not in government anywhere. Can I put forward this proposition? One of the reasons you're not in government anywhere in the country is because you've abandoned the people that you claim to represent. I've seen you abandon the barley growers. I've seen—

Senator Brockman, a point of order.

With all due respect to the minister, and I accept these are wideranging debates, but the minister is showing contempt for the chamber by not answering the question and not talking about the bill. It cannot go on.

Senator McKenzie's question was quite wideranging, but I would ask, Minister, that you come to the point.

This legislation does exactly the opposite of what you say it does. It does create those high-paying jobs. You're conflating the issue of the safeguards mechanism. Particularly, I reject your proposition that that's going to push energy prices higher. The idea that we move to a decarbonised economy was one which even the Nationals signed up to at the last election. Maybe you're crab walking away from that issue, but you signed up to net zero by 2050. What the safeguards legislation—and we're going to get to that later in the night—does is start moving us to a renewable superpower. We're going to create hydrogen. We're going to—

Point of order. As much as I appreciate the minister's capacity to waffle on and remind me of Uncle Arthur, who I used to view in my youth, this is a serious issue. Minister, you might think that—

Is it a point of order on relevance?

You're right. Can he get to the point?

This is in committee. You can take the call in about three minutes, so you can make your statement then.

If he doesn't know the answer, can he just sit down and let me ask my next question?

That's not a point of order either. Senator Ciccone.

Just on the point of order. Under the Senate rules, personal reflections are very disorderly. Regarding the remarks that she made about Senator Farrell, I would ask Senator McKenzie to withdraw those remarks about Uncle Arthur.

I unequivocally withdraw if I caused any harm to the minister.

Thank you for taking up the invitation. Minister, do you have anything to add, or shall I give the call to Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie.

Thank you for your assistance, Chair. Minister, you say that we're seeking to conflate two issues but there is no way—you are seeking to bring before the Senate a $15 billion loan facility for advanced manufacturing and consequentially don't want to talk about the sustainability of advanced manufacturing, which relies on affordable energy. All sides of parliament have agreed on a net zero position. It's about making sure that you don't destroy whole communities, industries and regions on your way through. That's all. The deal with the Greens has shown certain communities and certain industries will be significantly impacted. You can't crab walk away from that. You can't pretend that what one ministry does in government won't impact on another piece of legislation. My question remains—

Preamble.

I've got 15 minutes, 'Senator Preamble'.

You can waste your time.

This is called the committee stage, in case you didn't remember. This is where the opposition and crossbench senators get to have a say and get to ask the government questions about the impact of the legislation they're bringing before the chamber. They don't get to do it in the other place; they get to do it here. It's called democracy. My own Premier, Daniel Andrews, is not a fan of democracy—Senator Ciccone, you would have to agree with me on that.

The government have shown their complete disregard for the democratic principles of our system in the way their ministers treat OPDs, the way their front bench disregards genuine questions from the opposition and the crossbench and the way you're treating the committee stage for this particular bill. There have been genuine questions that community, industry, regions and the opposition itself want answered, and you've just made a mockery. There was a wonderful window of about maybe seven minutes, Senator Cash, where the minister was relevant to the question and giving detailed answers according to the Public Service ripping out their bits of paper and making sure he had his talking points in front of him.

I am very happy to put on the record the opposition's absolute offence at the way this minister and this government have treated the Senate. It is indicative of what we've seen in the last 10 months. My question remains: how many regional communities will benefit? Is there a weighting in the assessment for this money that will be provided to rural and regional communities or regional capitals? How will they be identified? How will that be weighted in the assessment of projects that this fund will seek to deliver on?

I can only repeat what I've already said. The corporation will strategically invest in high value adding projects in priority areas. A number of these priorities have a strong regional presence, such as value-add in resources and value-add in agriculture, defence and renewables, many of which are in country Australia. It's anticipated this will drive scale and growth, creating higher-value jobs in the regions.

Targeted to which regions, Minister?

FARRELL (—) (): Australian regions.

Honestly—Australian regions! Well I would hope you wouldn't be investing in overseas regions with these dollars. Can we narrow it down, Minister, because the last time the Labor Party was in government your own Regional Growth Fund funded major projects in capital cities. When the Labor Party says 'regions' I would like to have some confidence that it means that the third of Australians that actually don't live in capital cities in this country will benefit from the Labor Party's bill.

I'm one of those people who lives in regional Australia.

I'm fighting for you, Don.

Good on you. With friends like you I don't need enemies, with due respect, Senator. The corporation will make investments across all Australian states and territories. We expect that the corporation's investments in priority areas such as the value-add in resources and value-add in agriculture, defence and renewables will have a strong regional impact. Growth in the sectors will help regional areas diversify their economies and workforce opportunities.

Sounds like the preamble to the Regional Accelerator Fund, the $2 billion that was in the March budget that you axed. With respect to a question you answered from Senator Duniam on the water rule around forestry, what research has been done by the department on the impact of removing that rule in the Murray-Darling Basin?

I struggle to see the relevance of the question to this particular bill. If you could explain to me how your question relates to this bill, I'll attempt to answer it.

I was referring to a response that you gave Senator Duniam about the forestry industry. You spoke about removing the water rule under the EPBC Act regarding farmland under plantation. My question is: has there been any research? You made a statement here that you're going to do that and this is a fund that's going to be investing in forestry processing, I'm assuming. I want to understand the impact of the removal of the water rule on the Murray-Darling Basin. Over two million people live in the basin, and they are very, very concerned about the Labor Party's water policy thus far. I think it is beholden on the minister to tell the chamber what research has been done about the impact of this decision.

I still fail to see the relevance to this particular bill of that question. However, since you have raised the issue, we have a fine Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and I'm happy to arrange a briefing for you in respect of these issues as they relate to the Murray-Darling.

Following on from the questions earlier about the level of consultation with stakeholders and industry, has Dan Walton or the AWU specifically been consulted on the impact of the deal with the Greens for the safeguard mechanism and its impact on advanced manufacturing and electricity prices?

Again, you are conflating a bill that we are dealing with—

You ask me the questions and then you constantly interject to stop me answering the question. What's the point of asking me the questions if you want to give the answer yourselves? You're conflating two issues. Later on tonight you'll have all night, Senator McKenzie, to ask questions about the other piece of legislation. We are dealing with the National Reconstruction Fund bill at the moment. As I said earlier today, Minister Husic is a wonderful communicator and a wonderful consulter. I'd be amazed if he didn't consult with industry, all stakeholders and unions who might have an interest in this area, and business organisations. Earlier today I was reading out statements of support for our changes by the Business Council, AIG, ACCI. They're all on board. As I said earlier, it's a bit of a pity that the coalition can't get on board and start productively engaging with the government about the important revitalisation of the production industry. If I know Minister Husic, he will have widely consulted with all of the relevant stakeholders who would have an interest in this issue, and, unlike you, the opposition, all those organisations would have engaged, I'm sure, and given advice, offered suggestions—positive suggestions—that would have made this bill in its construction even better than it was when we produced it as a policy in the lead-up to the last election.

It's understood that you've said the fund will support developing the capabilities in train- and shipbuilding supply chains. Can the minister provide a guarantee to the Senate that the government's deal with the Greens will not place restrictions on investments in relation to the manufacture of trains, carriages, train parts and associated manufacturing supporting the rail supply chain where those investments may also end up supporting gas, coal and resource industries?

You've put a whole lot of—

Yes. You step it out. I think that would be easier, rather than me giving you the wrong answer in respect of one particular product.

Okay, so we have trains, carriages and shipbuilding. It is my understanding that this fund will be assisting in supporting those types of industries. Is that correct?

If any of those areas you've just mentioned meet the priority area of the fund then there's an opportunity to fund those areas.

If any of those products, then, are used in the production—the supply chain—for the coal, gas or resource industry, will that lead to them not being able to be supported by this fund?

It's all about the manufacturing of those products, not where those products might ultimately end up. So, as I said before, if they meet the priorities of the fund and seek funding and receive it, it'll be on the basis that they meet the criteria set out in the legislation.

Just to be clear, the NRF will support the manufacture of goods that will end up supporting and underpinning our gas, coal and resource industries. Were the Greens aware of this when they signed the deal on the safeguard mechanism?

enator FARRELL (—) (): That wasn't a question to me. That was a question to the Greens, as I understood it.

McKENZIE (—) (): It's actually a question to you, Minister, because the Greens have signed up to the safeguard mechanism on the understanding that this fund will not back the coal, gas or resource industry when in fact, if it's building the trains, if it's building the railway lines and if it's building the ships that are carrying our gas, that are carrying our coal and that are carrying our resources, it is absolutely underpinning and supporting our fabulous resource industries. Is this a case of the Labor Party absolutely duping Adam Bandt? Has Albo actually got it over Adam—pulled a swifty? Minister, has the Prime Minister successfully pulled a swifty against the Greens on this measure?

L (—) (): What you see is what you get with Prime Minister Albanese, in my experience. You can have great faith, Senator McKenzie, that the Prime Minister is a straight dealer in respect of all his dealings, whether with the Greens, with Senator David Pocock, with Senator Hanson or with any of the crossbenchers, or even you. I can give you a good example of that—last week, when the opportunity arose to deal with the Voice referendum machinery legislation.

(Quorum formed)

Minister, you just made a reference that it's a pity the Liberal Party aren't on board with this fund to get industry and manufacturing going in Australia. I have been speaking about this since 1996, since my first main speech in parliament. I am not associated with the coalition, but I have doubts about this legislation. Are you really upfront with the Australian people? Are you being truthful about where the funds will go?

I didn't like your answer earlier about who's going to be appointed to the board, whether it's going to be union representatives. Will the union reps then appoint only moneys going to organisations that are unionised? I have a big problem with that. I also have a big problem with the fact that under part 6 section 75(1) it states:

The Board must formulate written policies to be complied with by 16 Corporation bodies in relation to the following matters.

The government amendment then states it must be added, in the case of the corporation, 'the impact of investments of the corporation on First Nations Australians'. Please explain that one to me.

I thank Senator Hanson for her question. The Albanese government recognises the importance of putting First Nations people at the heart of decision-making on issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I think that has been clear from everyone on this side, including the Prime Minister.

I find it absolutely disgraceful that you have advocated for a referendum, for the people of Australia, to decide whether this will happen. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are putting this in legislation: that people must be consulted, if they're First Nations people, on legislation that the people of Australia have not approved. That is exactly what you have done. This is only the start of it. You are holding the people of Australia in contempt by what you've put in this legislation. Is that the case? Please answer this. By putting this in the legislation, do you hold the people in contempt? Because you are not prepared to wait till what they say in a referendum that you've already overridden the people of Australia by putting this in legislation that you will consult with them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pratt, we're getting along so nicely.

No.

Minister, I first want to clarify your answer to Senator McKenzie's question. If I understand you correctly, this fund can give a grant or an equity share investment or a loan to an Australian manufacturer that's making every component in an LNG train.

If the project meets the priority areas of the funding and the organisation ultimately make the decision to fund, then they can fund whatever they like, so long as it meets the criteria of the legislation.

What about in the other direction? What if the entity involved in the manufacturing is, for example, a shipbuilder that is building a ship fuelled by LNG?

I refer to my previous answer. The answer is the same.

OCKMAN () (): Minister, we've only got about 40 minutes till the Greens-Labor guillotine falls on this bill, which is a disgrace—left-lubber guillotine. What heads of power under the Constitution is this bill invoking?

Section 51 somewhere, hopefully.

It will be one of the numbers under section 51, but we're absolutely satisfied that this legislation is constitutional, unlike some of the legislation that the coalition have been bringing to the parliament in the last few days. We believe this is completely compliant with the Australian Constitution.

or BROCKMAN () (): I think I would like a more specific answer than that, Minister. While your advisers are getting that information—and I would like precise details please—what advice did you receive on the constitutionality of this bill?

That the legislation is constitutional.

You can't name the head of power. Who did you receive the advice from and when?

The legislation is constitutional.

Under what head of power?

The legislation is constitutional, and we don't provide legal advice, as is well known to the opposition.

Firstly, the government provides legal advice when it wants to, as you well know, and we can show you examples of that. You've finally got your piece of paper, Minister. Can you now answer the question—under what head of power?

The legislation is constitutional.

What advice did you seek to allow you to state that claim? It is simply not good enough to say that a piece of legislation is constitutional because you drafted it. Under what power are you making this legislation, and what advice did you receive that it was constitutional?

We would not bring a piece of legislation to this place if it was not constitutional.

Did you seek any advice, apart from having this drafted by your department?

ator FARRELL (—) (): This legislation is constitutional, and we wouldn't have brought this legislation to the parliament unless it was constitutional.

Minister, did you seek advice as to whether the Williams case has any implications for the legislation?

I'm not familiar with the Williams case.

This is going to surprise you, Senator Scarr, but I in fact did a pass Constitutional Law 1 and Constitutional Law 2.

Who gave you their lecture notes?

I had the good fortune of being lectured by a fellow called John Bradman, whose father was Don Bradman, and he was a very smart guy. I'm satisfied that my tutelage under him was good tutelage, and I'm very satisfied to say that this legislation is constitutional. We wouldn't be bringing this to the parliament unless it was constitutional.

I think it's fair to say that you haven't filled this chamber with confidence in your statement of the constitutionality of this bill. It is such a broad spending power that you are giving to an instrumentality of the Commonwealth government, under legislation that can spend money. It can invest in equity shares, make loans and give out grants, and it can do so across a broad sector of the economy. Minister, what controls are in place to ensure that this entity does not, for example, make all of its investment in one state or territory?

I think you have misrepresented the legislation. It can't provide grants. In that respect, I think you have incorrectly interpreted the legislation.

Then I'll reframe it to say just equity and loans. What would stop this organisation from spending all of its funds in one Commonwealth jurisdiction—in one state or territory?

Rest assured that the people that we're going to put in charge of the board and the people who will be working in this fund will have all of the skills to ensure that the money is properly spent. This won't be like a sports rorts exercise, where you simply handed out to your mates in order to try and win elections. This is about rebuilding manufacturing in this country, manufacturing that was devastated by the previous government's lack of interest in building things in Australia. We want to start building things in this country again. We don't want to see the sorts of events in Elizabeth and South Australia where you wiped out overnight one of the great companies of Australia, Holden, and lost all those jobs and all of the add-on jobs that were benefited by Holden. We don't want to see that again. The whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we fairly distribute funds right across Australia, including regional Australia, including Western Australia, so that we can start making things again in this country, start rebuilding the manufacturing industry, which has been so badly affected by the neglect of your government.

This is a big project. This is all about starting to build things in Australia, which we haven't been doing over the previous nine years of neglect from your government. We are serious about creating good, well-paying jobs in the regions in each of the states and territories, and I've got the greatest confidence that, under Minister Husic, that's exactly what we're going to do.

Senator Brockman, I think there's one question, and then I'm going to Senator Allman-Payne.

I'm almost finished, Chair. Minister, will this organisation be covered by the Commonwealth Investment Framework?

Thank you, Senator Brockman. It's a corporate Commonwealth entity.

That wasn't my question. Will equity investments made by this organisation be covered by the Commonwealth Investment Framework?

I've answered your question.

That's a very straightforward question I asked the chamber again. I ask the minister again through the chamber, and I ask the minister to be respectful of the chamber. That is a straightforward question which deserves an answer, and it was not answered in your first response.

I've answered the question.

Noting the significant number of questions to the minister around prohibited investments, I would like to put on the record that, given we are currently in a climate and biodiversity crisis where we absolutely must do everything we can to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming and stop the massive biodiversity loss that we are currently experiencing, the Greens are very pleased that we've secured amendments to ensure that the fund cannot fund coal and gas and native forest logging.

In that vein, I would like to add that the Greens also think that nuclear technology is a dead end. We've gutted our industry and manufacturing base. It's been hollowed out. And, without direction, the coalition have been reduced to cynical attempts—

Are you going to watch Oliver Stone's documentary?

Order!

Thank you, Temporary Chair. The coalition have been reduced to cynical attempts at grabbing a headline rather than actually engaging with workers and the future of industry in this country. Just the other day, Senator Canavan and the members for Capricornia and Flynn got together and declared that Gladstone should be home to the $368 billion nuclear submarines. It is breathtakingly out of touch to think that the future of Gladstone is in a hypothetical nuclear submarine in the distant future rather than the very real opportunity we have right now to transition and build a strong manufacturing base. The Greens will be supporting the amendment that makes nuclear technology a prohibited investment.

What I find appalling about the minister's answer is that this is about having industries and manufacturing go ahead, yet we put stipulations on: no coal, no gas, no forestry and no nuclear. Well, what the hell are we doing, then, in our country to create industries in manufacturing? What are we going to do about our nuclear medicine? We have medicines in Australia that are connected with nuclear, so what are you going to do about that? That's been going for a long time in Lucas Heights. You are signing up to the Greens. You really need to answer these questions about where you are headed with nuclear in this country. Are they the tail wagging the dog?

There is a question I'd like to ask. Before, Minister, I asked you about the people on this list. Who will be on this list? You said the department has a list. Well, I'm asking you: if I got former senator Patrick to get me the list from the department under FOI, would he be given the list? Are you going to present the list? If I make an FOI request on it, will you give me the list that the department or the minister has of the people on the list?

Of course, former senator Patrick is no longer here. But, if he wants to prepare an FOI request for Treasury, we will comply with all of the legal obligations that are relevant to freedom of information documentation. I notice that Senator Pocock has been trying to get the call for a number of occasions.

Senator Scarr's been trying to get the call too. I want to ask some questions, firstly, in relation to the very important points which Senator Hanson has been raising about who is going to be appointed to the board, or who can be appointed to the board, of this fund, which is going to be responsible for managing investments of up to—

And for five years.

Correct—for five years. And it will be managing investments of up to A$15 billion. Minister, you keep referring to what you call a skills matrix for the board, which is contained in proposed section 19(2) of the bill. Can you tell me: given all the matters that are covered in proposed subsubsections (a) to (k), why is it necessary to have proposed subsubsection (l), which says 'any other field that the ministers consider appropriate', which, as I read it, really gives the ministers a right to appoint anyone they want to the board, regardless of what their experience is, as long as they subjectively consider it to be relevant?

I thank Senator Scarr for his question. The structure is there. The structure speaks for itself. There is a skills matrix. We originally started with the proposition of six board members. Following consultation with those people who have been prepared to negotiate about this, we're going to increase that number to eight. So you've got eight people that you need to match with that skills matrix, as I explained earlier. The department will look at the requirements under that skills matrix. They'll come forward with a set of names of people who they believe meet those criteria. I have the greatest confidence that in that process we're going to get some of the best people in this country, who will be able to establish this board and give advice about how the fund should be best spent in the spirit of the legislation. Having prepared those names, the department is going to then forward those names to the minister. There are no surprises about this. This is how boards—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I explained my skills in respect of constitutional law.

Pretty poor skills!

Fair crack of the whip, Senator McGrath! I did pass. I did get a degree. Give me a little bit of credit here, Senator McGrath. There is a process. There are no real surprises about this process. I am surprised that you're so focused on how the board is selected when there are so many other things that you could've asked questions about.

We could go all night.

No, we're not going to go all night—at least not on this particular bill. On the other bill we'll go all night. There's a stock-standard process here about how you might find the best people who are going to start the job of rebuilding manufacturing in this country—the manufacturing that you let slide over the previous nine years of your government—and we're going to start building things in this country again. When that list of people is submitted to the minister, he will, I imagine, very carefully and very calmly make the selection of the best people to represent all of the skills that are going to be required to get the best value out of this fund. As I say, there's nothing complicated about this. There's nothing unusual about this. This is how boards get selected all the time, whether they're boards that your government established or boards that we've established.

Minister, you talk about all fields of expertise required under the skills matrix being represented, but isn't it the case that, under your proposed clause 19(2), the government could, for example, choose to appoint, say, three of the six board members who have industrial relations experience and are union members? There's no need, in fact, to make sure each of the skills is represented on the board—isn't that correct?

I'm sure that when the board is ultimately appointed it will reflect all of the skills that are necessary to make this fund a great success.

I have a couple of questions. First, about the priority areas: can the minister advise how the NRF will build domestic manufacturing capability in disaster resilience? How does it fit in with the proposed priority areas, and is there scope to include anything more explicitly on disaster resilience in priority areas? Then, on the supply chain: what capacity does the NRF have to address blockages and shortfalls in the supply chains, especially in building and construction, with regard to things like plantation timber trusses and triple-glazed glass?

I thank Senator Pocock for his question and the constructive way in which he's engaged with this very important project. It's a lesson for the coalition as to how one advances an interest in these matters.

The NRF may be able to build domestic manufacturing capability in disaster resilience where the project falls within a priority area of the economy, as defined by the priority areas declaration, and aligns with other criteria as set out in the bill and investment mandate. The government previously announced the seven areas of the economy that will be the basis of the first declaration to be made soon after the bill receives royal assent. The detail of each area is still being considered, taking into account the comprehensive consultation conducted by the government in late 2022 and early 2023. Given the government has not yet made a final decision on the drafting of the declaration, it is not possible for me to rule particular projects or technologies in or out.

As to the second question that you asked, it's expected that, through investments in priority areas, the corporation will build strategic industry capability and help to address supply chain vulnerabilities. Reflecting how critical this issue is, the government will move an amendment to clause 17 of the bill, which will require the board to have regard to the desirability of enhancing Australia's resilience against supply chain vulnerabilities, along with other important outcomes.

Minister, stakeholders from industry in one of Australia's largest trade unions, the AWU, have called on the government to allow the NRF to invest in gas projects—namely, carbon capture utilisation and storage, or CCUS. The union submission to the National Reconstruction Fund consultation—which I'll quote, as it has come from your union mates—further commits:

These technology needs should be directly reflected in funding decisions under the NRF.

As one example, the effective funding available for carbon capture and storage was cut by the 2022-23 Federal Budget update in October 2022. While the AWU recognises the need to target CCS funding to industries that are in most need, it is important to acknowledge that some industries do not have the option of electrification. For example, some industries use fossil fuel energy for process heat, or their emissions are a direct result of their process, such as in the case of cement production.

Minister, does the Albanese government believe that there should be investment of CCUS technologies in Australia? Yes or no?

Senator Hughes, you referred rather extensively to submissions that the Australian Workers Union made to the inquiry into this proposed piece of legislation. I'm not sure if you were in the Senate earlier when Senator McKenzie was singing the praises of Mr Walton, but I can only reiterate what a fine individual he is, leading that organisation, and what a terrific organisation they are.

Unlike the opposition, they've engaged in this whole process of working out how the fund will best work and the sorts of priority areas. The bill that you've got before you today reflects those wide-ranging consultation processes that took place. I answered a question from Senator David Pocock a moment ago in which I talked about the broad, wide-ranging consultation process that went on to create this bill. Please rest assured that all of the issues that people have raised have gone into consideration. What we now reflect on here is the totality of all of that discussion with the stakeholders.

Sorry, we'll try again. Can you confirm, Minister, if CCUS investment is expressly prohibited from the NRF?

I've answered the question.

That was not an answer to the question. We'll keep trying. Can you confirm—we will assume it, since you are not answering the question directly—that prohibition on CCUS investments is a direct result of the deal that Minister Husic has undertaken with the Australian Greens. Working on from that, confirming that that prohibition is because of the deal with the Greens. As you just commended Mr Walton, he has been particularly vocal about Green activists blacklisting CCUS and blue hydrogen and risking Australian jobs and significant investments. Do you accept this assessment? Why is it a prohibited investment in the NRF? If you don't accept the investment—I'm giving you two options here; you either accept it or you don't—has the Albanese government caved in to the Greens at the expense of potentially thousands of blue-collar jobs in the oil and gas industry?

I can only reiterate your favourable comments about Mr Walton and his very fine organisation, the Australian Workers Union—one of the great trade unions in this country, dedicated to lifting the wages and conditions of its members in often very difficult industries.

We have taken into account all of the submissions from all of the relevant stakeholders and interested parties in the design of this legislation, and this legislation reflects the totality of all of those discussions. Hopefully, sometime tonight this bill will pass the Senate and, in the next day or two, will become law when it goes back to the House of Representatives. This bill reflects the totality of all of those discussions and negotiations, and when it goes through it will present the Australian people with a great opportunity to start rebuilding in this country.

Minister, I've served on the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation during the course of the previous parliament and during the course of this parliament. As you should be aware, the scrutiny committee has concerns with respect to any instruments which are not subject to disallowance. I note the crucial role that the so-called investment mandate plays under proposed section 71 of this bill, dealing with matters such as matters of risk and return, the allocation of investments of the corporation between various priority areas et cetera. I also note, with a great deal of concern, that in giving a direction the minister may have regard not only to the object of the act but also to any other matters the minister considers relevant. I'm not sure what that could, in fact, cover outside of the object of the act. Given that the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee has made clear, and this chamber has made clear, that there must be exceptional circumstances which apply to a statutory instrument, such as the investment mandate, not being subject to a disallowance process, could you, firstly, please advise us what those exceptional circumstances are?

Secondly, I have read the explanatory memorandum, which purports to give reasons for the investment mandate not being subject to disallowance processes, which it should be, no matter which government it is. From reading that explanatory memorandum, it's clear to me that there is nothing that would prevent on any ground, including the ground of commercial certainty, that investment mandate having been prepared, or promptly being prepared, and a period of disallowance being allowed prior to the National Reconstruction Fund actually making investment decisions, so that this chamber would have an opportunity to apply its disallowance processes to that statutory instrument prior to any investments being made. In that way, there is absolutely no rational reason I can think of that commercial certainty or operational certainty would be compromised. If I'm wrong in my analysis, could the minister please explain to me why it is that there are exceptional circumstances which apply in this case that would make it commercially impossible for the investment mandate to be considered by this chamber, especially considering that we're at the start of this fund—assuming the legislation goes through—and that investment mandate could be considered prior to the National Reconstruction Fund actually making an investment?

Thanks, Senator Scarr. You've obviously thought deeply about the legislation, and I give you credit for doing that. Had the coalition decided that it was going to engage constructively in discussions about the legislation, I'm sure we would have happily engaged—as I did last week on the referendum machinery legislation, where I engaged constructively with the sensible members of your coalition—to try and get an outcome. You had the option, Senator Scarr, of doing that this time. I think if you'd been in control of these negotiations then we might have found that we had a positive contribution to this debate from the other side, but you've chosen not to do that. You've chosen to be an obstructionist, and, of course, that's meant that in order to get our legislation through we've had to go to discussions with the Greens, Senator David Pocock and other groups. Of course, the legislative scheme set up by the NRF bill provides that the investment mandate will be issued by the government, taking into account the views of the corporation board. The investment mandate—

But not with the disallowance—

You asked me a question. I sat quietly.

With respect, Senator Scarr, I sat quietly and listened to the totality of your question. You've asked me a question. I'm trying to answer it as directly as I can. You might recall I complimented you for the interest that you've taken in this matter. I think that if your other colleagues start doing the work that you've done then we might get some better outcomes in terms of discussion about important changes to legislation in this country.

The investment mandate in any submissions made by the board of the corporation to the government will be tabled in parliament. It's important to note that the investment mandate does not create any powers for the NRF; rather, it's a direction from the government about how the NRF performs its investment functions and exercises its investment powers. This model is an established operational model that is consistent with and, in our view, has worked well for similar Commonwealth specialist investment vehicles such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, all of which are guided by non-disallowable investment mandates.

Minister, can you please confirm that the board of the NRF will be required to give regard to climate related risks and nature related risks when making investment decisions and, as TCFD and TNFD progress, and if that becomes implemented in Australia, that the board may give regard to climate related financial disclosure and nature related financial disclosure frameworks when assessing those risks?

I thank Senator Pocock for his question and his desire to support the government in starting to build things in Australia again. Clause 75 of the NRF bill requires the corporation to develop a suite of investment policies, including in relation to risk management. Consideration of climate risk represents best investment and governance practice, and the government expects the NRF will consider these issues as part of developing its risk-management policy.

In respect to your second question: protecting the environment is a priority for this government. We will be moving an amendment to clause 17, requiring the board to have regard to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and supporting decarbonisation when performing their functions. We are also moving a further amendment to clause 75 requiring the corporation to consider labour, environmental, social and governance matters in performance of its investment functions. We expect issues like this will be considered by the board.

There is a topic I raised in my speech on the second reading. I raised the dire situation of the last urea fertiliser plant closing in Australia this year. I note that, in reference to this bill, the minister for agriculture has mentioned a couple of times that somehow this could be a solution for this issue. The minister might be aware that the Senex Atlas project includes a proposal to build a urea plant at Dalby, in western Queensland, giving us access to that incredibly strategic sovereign capability. However, that project also involves the development of gas fields in western Queensland, because to make urea you need to have a feedstock of gas. They plan to extract 48 terajoules of gas a day. Minister, given the government's support for a Greens amendment that would prohibit investments that 'directly finance the extraction of coal or natural gas', would a urea fertiliser plant proposal that is combined with the development of gasfields associated with it qualify for funding under the National Reconstruction Fund following the government's agreement to these Greens amendments?

I thank Senator Canavan for his question. The areas of the economy that the NRF can invest in will be set out in the priority areas declaration.

Minister, as I mentioned, the minister for agriculture has been saying that the fund could invest in a urea fertiliser plant. He said that very thing at Senate estimates back in February. Is the minister for agriculture misleading the Senate, then? Or do you have some further information to add here? The contribution from the minister for agriculture was very political in nature, pressuring members of parliament in Queensland, saying, 'Hey, you should support this, because we could get a fertiliser plant out of the National Reconstruction Fund.' Are you saying here that that's not the case? In particular, I draw your attention back to the Greens amendment. What is the effect of the Greens amendment that you have supported? Will that knock out a proposal to build a fertiliser plant that involves the development of gas resources?

I might start my contribution by saying what a terrific agriculture minister Minister Watt is, and of course he's absolutely full bottle on all the things that relate to agriculture that flow from this new fund. But I can only repeat, in the answer to your specific questions, that the areas of the economy that the NRF can invest in will be set out in the priority areas declaration.

With all respect to the minister, my question didn't go to the priority areas. My question went to an amendment that's in the legislation. So, obviously these priority areas post any bill can't use the funds from this bill in a way that would be inconsistent with the legislation. The legislation as amended through the agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens prohibits, as I mentioned, the financing of something that directly involves the extraction of coal or gas. I'll just repeat again, and maybe this is a good education for the minister—I'm not sure how much he's aware of this—that about half of our nation's agriculture comes from the use of urea. Urea is effectively a developed process from natural gas, through the Haber-Bosch process. You need natural gas to create urea. If we're going to have a sovereign capability to produce urea in the future, there'll need to be the associated production of gas. Will this fund help us solve this major issue which we'll be confronting, in just a matter of months, where we rely almost exclusively, and for half of our agriculture we'll be reliant, on the importation of a fertiliser from overseas? It's a shocking development in a nation that's prided itself for its history, at least since the days of the early settlers, on being able to feed itself. Well, in a few months time we won't be able to do that. Your own minister for agriculture has been holding out that this somehow is a solution to this. Can you please address this issue before we vote on it? Will the Greens amendment knock out the development of a urea fertiliser plant being funded by this fund?

Minister, you have 30 seconds.

enator FARRELL (—) (): Thank you, Chair. Well, Senator Canavan, I know a damn sight more about the agricultural industry than you will ever know, and I find your comments completely patronising and, to be honest with you, quite insulting.

Well, just answer the question.

Well, I have answered the question. You don't like my answer. You never do like my answers, but I know a damn sight more about agriculture in—

Thank you, Minister. Please take your seat. It being 8 pm, according to the resolution that was agreed earlier, I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the chair is that the amendments to government amendment (2) on sheet UC140, moved by Senator David Pocock on sheet 1895, be agreed to.

The question before the chair is that government amendments on sheet UC140 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the success of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation's work will depend in large part on the existence of a sustainable pipeline of eligible projects at a stage suitable for funding through the Corporation, and

(ii) the work of the Corporation will reach across multiple portfolio areas and have a long-term, transformative impact on Australia's economy and industrial base; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) commit to exploring additional policy mechanisms to provide Australian startups access to finance as they navigate the path to commercialisation, and

(ii) establish an office for the Corporation in the Australian Capital Territory to foster collaborative engagement with other key government bodies and private corporations and access to a skilled local workforce".

I will now deal with the remaining sheet of government amendments. The question is that the government amendments on sheet SK150 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 75, page 46 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) in the case of the Corporation—the impact of investments of the Corporation on First Nations Australians;

(2) Clause 75, page 46 (after line 30), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) in the case of a designated subsidiary of the Corporation—the impact of investments of the designated subsidiary on First Nations Australians;

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that the amendments on sheet—Senator Cash?

In relation to the amendments, I would ask the amendments on sheet 1866 be put separately to the amendments on sheet 1897 revised 2 and sheet 1919.

For clarity, you want sheet 1866 separated from the other two.

That is correct, yes.

The question is that One Nation amendments on sheet 1866 be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment s

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) directly finance any activities for which a complying investment under the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 could be made.

I now intend to put the question for the remaining amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1987 REVISED 2

(1) Subclause 63(3), page 39 (line 5), omit "An investment", substitute "Subject to subsection (3A), an investment".

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 9), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) However, paragraph (3)(a) and (b) do not prohibit an investment of a Corporation body which directly finances:

(a) the construction of pipeline infrastructure for the transportation of natural gas from the point of extraction to storage facilities in Australia; and

(b) the extraction of natural gas that supports Australian industry and the Australian domestic gas market.

SHEET 1919

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 29), after paragraph (l) of the definition of constitutionally-supported activities, insert:

; (m) activities with respect to copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xviii) of the Constitution).

(2) Clause 6, page 10 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

6 Priority areas of the Australian economy

(1) The commercialisation, lawful propriety protection and development of Australian developed intellectual property by an Australian individual or entity is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

(2) In addition, the Ministers may, by legislative instrument, declare that each area of the Australian economy specified in the declaration is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

(3) Clause 71, page 44 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) The Ministers must give the Board a direction requiring that a low-risk investment policy is to be applied to an investment of a Corporation body for purposes relating to, or activities supporting, the priority area of the Australian economy mentioned in subsection 6(1).

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1897 revised 2 and sheet 1919 be agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1872

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (lines 4 to 13), subclauses (3) and (4) to be opposed.

The question before the chair is that subclauses 63(3) and (4) stand as printed.

The question now is that the opposition's amendments on sheets 1821, 1824, 1825, 1829 and 1841 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1821

(1) Clause 6, page 10 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

6 Priority areas of the Australian economy

(1) Each of the following areas of the Australian economy is a priority area of the Australian economy to enhance sovereign manufacturing capability for the purposes of this Act:

(a) resources technology and critical minerals processing;

(b) food, fibre and beverage;

(c) medical products;

(d) recycling and clean energy;

(e) defence;

(f) space.

(2) In addition, the Ministers may, by legislative instrument, declare that each area of the Australian economy specified in the declaration is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

SHEET 1824

(1) Clause 71, page 44 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) A direction under subsection (1) does not come into effect until it has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament.

SHEET 1825

(1) Heading to clause 82, page 50 (line 10), omit the heading, substitute:

82 Publicati on and tabling of investment reports

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (before line 11), before subclause (1), insert:

Publication of investment reports by the Corporation

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Corporation must, within one month after the end of each quarter, give a copy of the report for that quarter to the Minister.

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

Tabling of investment reports by the Minister

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of each report given to the Minister under subsection (1A) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament no later than the 3 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

SHEET 1829

(1) Clause 91, page 56 (line 29), omit "review is completed", substitute "report is given to the nominated Minister".

(2) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 2 and 3), omit "5 years", substitute "1 year".

(3) Clause 91, page 57 (line 6), omit "5 years", substitute "1 year".

(4) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (7), substitute:

(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), a review is completed when the report of the review is tabled in each House of the Parliament under subsection (4).

SHEET 1841

(1) Clause 82, page 50 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add:

and (iv) the name of the constitutional corporation;

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (line 28), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity or individual;

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (line 2), at the end of paragraph (1)(c), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity;

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (line 6), at the end of paragraph (1)(d), add:

and (iii) the State or Territory to which the financial accommodation was provided;

The question is that the amendments on sheets 1821, 1824, 1825, 1829 and 1841 be agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1884

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

Note: Subsection (3) does not prevent a Corporation body from financing a constitutional corporation that engages in the activities mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) unless the investment would directly fund these activities.

SHEET 1885

(1) Clause 71, page 43 (after line 11), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:

(aa) the Strategic Direction of the Corporation bodies (if one is in effect); and

(2) Page 46 (after line 13), after clause 74 insert:

74A Strategic Direction

(1) The Board must, every 5 years, prepare a Strategic Direction to be complied with by the Corporation bodies in relation to the Investment Mandate.

(2) The Board must ensure that the Strategic Direction:

(a) is consistent with the Investment Mandate; and

(b) includes priority areas for investment by Corporation bodies; and

(c) is suitable to operate for a period of 5 years.

(3) The Board must submit the first Strategic Direction to the nominated Minister within 60 days after the first direction under subsection 71(1) is given to the Board.

(4) The Board must, before the end of the period to which a Strategic Direction relates, prepare a Strategic Direction for the 5-year period immediately following the current period and submit it to the nominated Minister.

(5) The nominated Minister must, within 14 days after each Strategic Direction or revised Strategic Direction is submitted, decide to either:

(a) approve the Strategic Direction; or

(b) request an amendment to the Strategic Direction.

(6) If the nominated Minister requests an amendment to a Strategic Direction or revised Strategic Direction, the Board must implement the amendment as soon as practicable and resubmit the Strategic Direction to the nominated Minister in accordance with subsection (5).

(7) If the nominated Minister does not approve, or request an amendment to, the Strategic Direction or a revised Strategic Direction within 14 days, then at the end of that period the nominated Minister is taken to have approved the Strategic Direction.

(8) A Strategic Direction comes into effect at the start of the day after the day the nominated Minister approves the Strategic Direction and ceases to have effect on the earlier of:

(a) the end of the day the nominated Minister approves another Strategic Direction; and

(b) the end of the day after the end of the period of 5 years after the Strategic Direction comes into effect.

Variation of the Strategic Direction

(9) If there is a change in the Investment Mandate, the Board must review the Strategic Direction and may revise the Strategic Direction.

(10) A revised Strategic Direction must be submitted as soon as practicable to the nominated Minister for decision in accordance with subsection (5).

Performance of investment functions

(11) A Corporation body must not perform an investment function mentioned in section 63 unless a Strategic Direction is in effect.

(12) A Corporation body must comply with the Strategic Direction.

(13) A failure to comply with the Strategic Direction does not affect the validity of any transaction.

Tabli ng and publishing

(14) The nominated Minister must cause a copy of each Strategic Direction to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Strategic Direction is approved.

(15) The Board must cause each Strategic Direction to be published on the Corporation's website as soon as practicable after the Strategic Direction is approved.

SHEET 1886

(1) Clause 18, page 16 (line 5), omit paragraph (b), substitute:

(b) at least 6, and no more than 8, other members.

(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 24), after paragraph 19(2)(k), insert:

(ka) the commercialisation of innovative research;

(3) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 25), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) In appointing members, the Ministers must ensure that the Board members collectively have an appropriate balance of experience or expertise, professional credibility and significant standing in the fields mentioned in subsection (2).

I request that the amendments on sheets 1884 and 1885 be put separately.

In response to the request by Senator Cash, I intend to put two questions. The first question is that the amendment on sheet 1884 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I'll now put the second question: that the amendments on sheet 1885 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The next question is that the amendments on sheet 1886 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1840 REVISED

(1) Clause 82, page 50 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add:

and (iv) the name of the constitutional corporation;

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (line 28), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity or individual;

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (line 2), at the end of paragraph (1)(c), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity;

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (line 6), at the end of paragraph (1)(d), add:

and (iii) the State or Territory to which the financial accommodation was provided;

SHEET 1909

(1) Clause 21, page 17 (lines 6 and 7), omit "5 years", substitute "4 years".

(2) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 2 and 3), omit "within 5 years after the commencement of this section", substitute "by 31 December 2026".

I request that the amendments on sheet 1840 revised and sheet 1909 be separated.

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1840 revised be agreed to.

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1909, as circulated by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheets 1863, 1875 and 1876 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1863

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (lines 5 to 9), after "directly" (wherever occurring), insert "or indirectly".

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (before line 11), before the definition of native forest, insert:

indirectly, in relation to the finance of certain activity, includes directly financing other activity that is in the same supply chain as the first-mentioned activity.

SHEET 1875

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) finance the development or use of nuclear technology; or

(e) finance the construction or operation of a radioactive waste management facility.

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 11), after the definition of native forest, insert:

nuclear technology does not include nuclear medicine technology produced other than through the use of nuclear reactors.

SHEET 1876

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) finance the development or use of nuclear technology; or

(e) finance the construction or operation of a radioactive waste management facility.

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 11), after the definition of native forest, insert:

nuclear tec hnology does not include nuclear medicine technology produced other than through the use of nuclear reactors.

I seek leave to have a division on the government amendments on sheet SK150.

Leave not granted.

by leave—I ask that my name and the names of Senator Hanson and Senator Babet be recorded as being opposed to the amendment.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

by leave—I move:

Environment and Communications References Committee—

Appointed—Participating member [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into oil and gas exploration in the Beetaloo Basin]: Senator McCarthy

National Anti-Corruption Commission—Joint Statutory Committee—

On 29 March 2023—

Discharged—Senator Bilyk

Appointed—Senator Stewart

On 30 March 2023—

Discharged—Senator Stewart

Appointed—Senator Bilyk

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Climate Change Act that was passed by this Parliament on 8 September lays a crucial foundation for climate action.

We noted at the time that the Climate Change Act was just the beginning.

Since then, continued extreme weather—such as the devastating flood events across such large areas of South East Queensland, NSW and Victoria—has provided a constant reminder of the need for action.

And the global community has restated its commitment to action at Sharm El Sheikh.

The time for action is now.

The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is another step to ensure Australia plays its part in global efforts and achieves our legislated targets.

An enhanced Safeguard Mechanism is a crucial building block for Australia's transition to net zero.

It will require Australia's largest industrial facilities to reduce their emissions, gradually and predictably, in line with our national targets.

This puts Australia's industry on a path to net zero, and helps ensure Australian businesses remain competitive as the world decarbonises.

Most Safeguard facilities—around 80%—are owned by companies that have made net zero commitments. These voluntary commitments cover around 86% of emissions reported under the Safeguard Mechanism.

Our reforms will ensure a level-playing field between the majority who are on a path towards net zero, and the minority who have not yet begun this journey.

As the Australian electricity system becomes cleaner and cheaper through the deployment of renewable energy, it is vital that large industrial and resources sectors also reduce their direct emissions covered by the Safeguard Mechanism.

Australian businesses and their investors know the world is changing, and that they need the right signals in place to not just stay competitive, but to innovate and thrive.

This Bill aims to support and encourage large emitters to unlock emissions reductions where they are most efficient.

Some businesses have low-cost abatement opportunities ready to go and could reduce their emissions faster than required by the Safeguard Mechanism.

This Bill incentivises efficient emissions reductions by enabling businesses who are overachieving to be issued tradeable Safeguard Mechanism Credits.

Other businesses with more limited abatement options could buy these credits to help meet their required emissions reductions.

The net emissions of Safeguard facilities, when added together, will reduce each year.

By lowering the cost of reducing emissions, crediting and trading will help Safeguard facilities to contribute to Australia's climate targets in a cost-effective way, and enable increased ambition over time.

This Bill provides that facilities could use Safeguard Mechanism Credits for Safeguard compliance alongside Australian Carbon Credit units.

The Bill establishes the framework for creating Safeguard Mechanism Credits, covering how credits are issued, purchased, and included in Australia's National Registry of Emissions Units.

The idea of crediting safeguard facilities below their baseline is not new, it was a policy proposed and funded by the previous government.

Another policy announced, but not delivered.

Following the passage of this Bill, the Australian Government will make subordinate legislation setting out the detail of how crediting will work in practice. On 10 January 2023 we released drafts of these instruments for consultation.

This Bill updates the objects of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to reflect these important reforms, and ensures that changes to the subordinate legislation can only be made where they are consistent with these objectives.

This subordinate legislation will implement the detail of reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism to predictably and gradually reduce baselines so that Australian industry contribute its share to meeting the 2030 target on a trajectory to net zero by 2050.

The Government will continue consultation to settle this subordinate legislation.

The Bill will also update and strengthen the compliance arrangements if emissions are more than permitted.

It includes provisions to prevent companies from structuring their facilities to avoid their emission reduction obligations.

The Bill provides a framework which addresses incentive overlaps from declining Safeguard Mechanism baselines, Safeguard crediting and opportunities to create Australian Carbon Credit Units.

To provide scheme settings which respond to stakeholder feedback, the Bill provides for the ability to sell Australian carbon credit units previously purchased by the Government.

The Bill takes important steps to increase transparency of information on offsets projects, a key initial step to implement the recommendations of the Chubb Review.

The Powering Australia plan sends a message that we are determined to harness the opportunities of the net zero revolution.

Australia can and should achieve its climate ambition in a way that minimises costs and shares the effort across the economy.

Reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism will provide strong investment signals, and provide a balanced scheme that is effective, equitable, efficient, and simple.

The Government knows the time for action is now, and action this decade is critical to addressing climate change. 2030 is now only 82 months away.

We must continue to act decisively to meet our climate targets.

The Government is committed to the Safeguard Mechanism reform starting on 1 July 2023. Any delay will just make the future task harder.

This is a tight timeframe, but businesses are well prepared for the change.

They have over a decade's experience measuring their emissions, and most are already charting their own path to net zero. This Bill, and the Safeguard Mechanism reforms it progresses, helps secure and ease that path, expanding options, reducing costs, and enhancing certainty.

The time for action is now; we don't have a second to waste.

What a night—from one bill that will have a negative impact on the Australian economy to another! And what a way it has arrived in this place. This legislation, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, is the subject of a Senate inquiry and, of course, a secret backroom deal where dodgy agreements have been reached in secret with no transparency, and here we are now, at the eleventh hour, dealing with this bill. We'll be sitting late into the night, I expect, to hear contributions from across the chamber.

It's a dodgy deal we should have seen coming. It's one that we should have expected because there is form developing here. This is what the world looks like now. Post the last federal election the Australian Labor Party are relying on the Australian Greens to do business in this country. It's this new power-sharing arrangement, a new coalition, and the end result we are seeing, every step of the way—and I should know; I'm from Tasmania. I've seen what happens when these deals are struck up. It's never good. Just a tip: punters always miss out. Power prices always go up. The cost of living always goes up. It's harder for people to achieve their dreams.

This dodgy deal, as I say, is one we should have seen coming. This dodgy deal between Labor and the Greens is one that's going to drive up power prices and drive industry, and those jobs attached to those businesses, offshore. This dodgy deal won't improve environmental outcomes at all, contrary to some of the assertions. It's actually going to make them worse globally. We are part of the world. We're not just some bubble out off to the side. We actually do contribute to global emissions. When they're offshored, as this bill will drive emissions offshore, this problem simply becomes something elsewhere for someone else to deal with, not for us.

It was most interesting, on the road to where we are today to finally be debating this bill in the Senate, to observe the faux interest in accountability we observed from the Greens. On the way through in the Senate inquiry we heard evidence from various stakeholders who were concerned about the impacts, some who were, of course, supportive of what was before them. This was before any of the secret deals had been hatched between Labor and the Greens. There was this faux interest in accountability. It was about the modelling that underpins this legislation, modelling that the government wasn't going to release to us.

They hid behind this ridiculous claim of public interest immunity—complete contempt for the Senate. It's our right, as senators, to see this information, to understand what it is we're voting on, to make sure we're apprised of all the facts. I went along with this. My colleagues Senator Hanson-Young and Senator David Pocock on the Senate inquiry into this legislation all made it clear that it was not acceptable. It was not okay that this modelling was hidden from us—modelling that would give us some assurance that what this bill was proposing to do could actually be achieved. That is, that businesses that couldn't meet their emissions reduction targets could rely on carbon credits or safeguard mechanism credits to offset their emissions to continue to trade here. The alternative is they have to pay a penalty. This tax is a $275-a-tonne tax for businesses. That is not going to make the cost of doing business lower. That is not going to drive down the cost of manufacturing. It is not going to create jobs. It is, in fact, going to make it all worse.

So here we were, all of us—everyone except the government—asking for this information. All the while, the same people I was sitting in the committee with, asking for this information, were cooking up a sneaky backroom deal to get this bill through. As I said before, we should have seen it coming. But we genuinely asked the question, 'How could we actually vote on this legislation without this information?' It's a concern I still have. We don't have this modelling. We don't know. We have no further comfort that this bill will do what the government tells us it will. All we have is: 'Trust us. We've got modelling. We've seen it. We know what we're talking about.' I guarantee you that through the duration of this debate, and through the committee stage, we won't be given anything by way of supporting information.

But the one thing that did change was that those I was teaming up with to move motions to demand that this information be released suddenly don't think it's important anymore. They are now happy to bring this bill on for debate, to rush it through this week without the modelling that was so important, that we had all this concerns about. As I say, we should have seen it coming. It's just another Labor-Greens stitch-up, and one that is becoming all too commonplace in this parliament. This is the brave new world of Labor-Greens politics in Australia, where these deals are hatched. The people that pay for these deals, of course, are going to be the people of Australia. They're going to pay for these deals—this one in particular, much like the one we've just voted on—with higher power prices. This new tax on heavy emitting industries, carbon intensive industries, is going to drive up the cost of electricity.

You don't really have to take my word for it. You can actually go and listen to the concerns and the complaints of industry. In good faith, industry peak bodies and entities right across this country have worked with government to try and minimise the harm that legislation like this will do to their sectors. I would dearly love them to speak up a bit louder about the concerns they have, because we'll be in their corner, fighting with them, but instead they've gone along with it. Let's have a look at some of the concerns that have been raised about the impact that this legislation will have on the economy, all elements of it—everything from the cost of living and the cost of doing business like power prices, like the cost of fuel and like inputs to housing and construction. Let's look at what it does to certainty around gas supply.

We'll start with Saul Kavonic from Credit Suisse. He's their energy analyst. He said that while the safeguard reform deal with the Greens is a far cry from a ban on new oil and gas, 'it certainly doesn't indicate new oil and gas supply is welcome'. He also said:

It lays the groundwork for more obstacles to new investment in gas supply, contrary to Labor's recent message that Australia needs more gas supply.

This is what happens when a government does a deal with their natural bedfellows, the Australian Greens. It starts to make it harder to bring on the essentials we need to have a functioning economy.

Samantha McCulloch, the chief executive officer of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, said that the deal would ultimately make Australia's climate change targets harder and more costly to meet, given the importance of gas in providing a backup for renewables, and:

New gas supply investment needs policy and regulatory certainty but instead, the Labor-Greens deal creates additional barriers to investment, further diminishing the investment environment and adding to the growing list of regulatory challenges facing the sector.

The changes announced today strengthen the need for strong government direction on critical step change technologies such as carbon, capture and storage (CCS).

But I tell you what, I don't reckon we're going to see much of that, if that Greens tail continues to wag this Labor dog.

Andrew McKellar, the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that the assurance that energy affordability and supply have not been compromised in this deal with the Greens has not been given. He says:

While we welcome the certainty that an agreement will bring, business remains concerned about access to affordable and reliable energy—

and I could go on. But the point, which is a very clear and straightforward one, is that this legislation, designed to bring down emissions, has a further far-reaching impact than just doing that. This is no longer carrot; it's all stick. It's a blunt instrument, and it's gotten worse in the last 24 to 36 hours because the government found some dark room somewhere in this building—probably smoke-filled, who knows—and did dodgy deals with a group who are actually not pro industry, who are not pro job. The end result, as I say, is that Australians are going to be paying a lot more for their electricity and all of the other inputs into their daily lives. Australians are going to be paying more for every single one of the essentials they rely on every day.

Businesses are going to suffer too, and it's not just going to be the 215 big emitters that were originally caught under the safeguard mechanism. They, of course, are directly impacted by these decreasing baselines, the 4.9 per cent per annum to the year 2030. And, of course, if they can't meet those targets and if they can't offset those targets then they have to pay the penalty. That's bad. They are going to be making investment decisions based on this new tax that Labor and the Greens are putting on these businesses, sending a chilling message out to the rest of the world that we really aren't open for business. For the small- to medium business enterprises in their hundreds, if not thousands, that work with these big businesses—that rely on contracts with these big businesses for maintenance, for upgrades, for other services they provide—that work will dry up. The small to medium businesses are going to be paying more for energy and other inputs that these large emitters put in. They're going to become uncompetitive. Business and productivity will slow. Productivity is going to be driven down by this legislation.

It's just so ironic. The last bill that we dealt with in this place was something that the government vaunted as this manufacturing boon-creating piece of legislation. It's going to open up the economy and drive all sorts of new innovation and high-paying jobs. And here we are with the next bill bringing in taxes and arrangements that are going to drive jobs and productivity offshore. In addition to that, it's going to drive emissions offshore. This is not good: jobs will be lost; the economy will slow; everyone will be worse off. And here we are dealing with legislation that should be stopped. This legislation is going to do all of this.

Basic economics has gone out the window here. I touched on this before, with regard to the CEO of Appia talking about the need to bring on gas as one of the step-change technologies for supporting a transition to renewables. The fact is all of the levers that are being pulled by this government, in partnership with the Greens, are going to drive down the incentive and drive away the interests in investing in gas exploration. We need it. We can't just switch it off tomorrow, because if we don't have it there, coming on, we will be having blackouts this winter. If we go down this pathway of banning fossil fuels, which is what the Greens have told us their deal on this legislation will do, we will not be able to cater for the economic and energy needs that this country has. And so economics is gone, the laws of demand and supply have been ignored and we've been warned about the impact that these changes in laws will have. But it has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to this government, and of course to the Australian Greens.

As I said before, we are part of the globe, we are part of a global economy, we are a part of a world that has a global environmental responsibility. It's not something we can just look at in isolation and pretend everything that happens offshore from this country is not our responsibility. These laws will not improve environmental outcomes. They won't improve economic outcomes. They are, indeed, inflationary. As I said before, it is a new tax.

I have many concerns about the nature of some of the amendments that have been talked about in the media—circulated, I guess, at the eleventh hour—these 20 pieces of silver that they've been given in return for supporting this legislation—legislation, incidentally, that doesn't seem to have been met with universal acclaim from one of the supporting parties. Indeed, I was looking at reports today about a tweet from one of our colleagues here, Senator McKim, who said:

We have been in negotiations with the corrupt, ecocidal government of a petro-state that was prepared to hold a gun to the head of future generations by threatening to blow up climate action unless they could continue to approve massive new coal and gas projects.

He said this on Twitter on Monday night. This is coming off the back of foundation life member and former senator Bob Brown, who is a man of conviction. Whether you agree with him or not, you know where you stand with him. You know he's never, ever, ever going to change his view on stuff when he says, 'This is what I believe, and this is what I'm going to do.' He resigned from the Australian Conservation Foundation because of their support for this disastrous piece of legislation. He has different views about this. He doesn't like it for different reasons than I don't like it, but I tell you what: he's going to stick to his guns, hold his nerve and stick to his values and what he believes to be right.

I can't say the same for the Australian Greens. They have done a deal which does not meet with the demands. I will be interested to see what former senator Bob Brown says over coming months about the Greens and their new deal with their friends here, their coalition partners, the Australian Labor Party. But, at the end of the day, do you know what? I can say all of these things, but they will ignore what I say. Power prices will go up. The cost of doing business will go. There is, as there was with the gas price cap legislation at the end of last year, one test for this, and it's going to come in the middle of this year.

Do prices go down?

That's right: when Australian households and Australian businesses receive their next power bills, are they going to gone up as a result of this or are they going to have gone down? My tip is, as it was at the end of last year, they will have gone up. They will have not gone down, and that is going to be a terrible reality for Australian families to deal with. These families are already dealing with increased mortgage repayments, 10 interest rate increases, coming off fixed rates onto variable rates, and now, because of the Labor-Greens government in this country they're going to be dealing with higher power prices. They may well lose their jobs because they're going to drive the businesses they work for offshore, along with the emissions that will come out of countries that don't give a damn about the environment. It's a sad day, and I hope people wake up and see what's happening.

I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, and I am pleased that the Greens have been able to secure so many changes to strengthen this mechanism. Thanks to the strong negotiations of Greens leader Adam Bandt and his team and thanks to the Greens being in the balance of power in the Senate, coal and gas have taken a huge hit. We've stopped almost half of the 116 coal and gas projects in the pipeline from going ahead, pollution will actually go down and we've derailed the Beetaloo and Barossa gas fields. Prior to these amendments, Labor's reheating of Tony Abbott safeguard mechanism was a company-by-company net emissions target that reduces by 4.9 per cent a year. Under Labor's original draft, the mechanism covered the top 215 big polluters in the country, but, if a company exceeded its net target, it could purchase carbon credits generated by other companies' pollution cuts or carbon offsets that have no integrity, such as fencing land. A company's real pollution could still have risen. Labor's original safeguard mechanism was a plan full of accounting tricks with no real cuts to pollution, and it allowed more coal and gas and did nothing to stop the 116 new projects for coal and gas in the investment pipeline.

The Greens have secured changes that will make a big difference. I'm going to run the chamber through those but first some important scientific context. Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, released its latest report, its sixth synthesis report, collating and analysing the wealth of scientific, economic, health and social impact research done in recent years. Nothing in the report is surprising—the world's scientists have been warning us for years—but the evidence is still shocking. Humans have changed the climate, and we are paying the price. Australia is just one of the countries that's contributing to this problem, and Australia is, in fact, one of the countries that is most exposed to climate damage. This is not just about future generations anymore. The impacts of the climate crisis are being felt already—devastating bushfires, floods, heatwaves, declining biodiversity, coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, sea level rises putting Torres Strait Islander communities at risk. We've heard these warnings before and the nation's parliament has ignored them. We've squandered the last critical decade under a climate-denying government. It's time to act as if we are going to keep global heating below catastrophic levels, and the time to do that is now.

The IPCC report also confirms that we can still act. Every fraction of a degree of avoided warming reduces the risks and makes us safer. We have the solutions we need. We know what needs to be done. So far, we have just failed to do it. The pace of change must be accelerated to bridge the massive gap between where we are and where we need to be.

The UN Secretary-General has called for developed countries like Australia to get out of coal, oil and gas; to stop licensing new projects and to stop allowing existing projects to expand. We cannot put the fire out while we are pouring fuel on it. That's why the Greens will continue to call on the government to commit to no new coal and gas projects. Not one of those 116 projects currently waiting for approval can go ahead if we are serious about tackling the climate crisis. We need to go all in on making the transition to a sustainable energy system. We need investments in new technologies, in manufacturing and in supporting the industries of the future. We need to support affected communities as we phase out fossil fuels. All of this is possible. It's also essential, and it's urgent. The IPCC could not have been clearer about this. The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action, and we owe it to the planet, to our children and to their children to act now and get out of coal and gas.

It's in this scientific context that the Greens sought to negotiate with Labor to try to stop new coal and gas. We pushed and we pushed and we pushed. But in a climate crisis the Labor Party still wants to open more coal and gas, and when we're negotiating with Labor it's like we're negotiating with the political wing of the multibillion-dollar fossil fuel industry. Despite Labor's unwillingness to act urgently to prevent all new coal and gas, we have secured significant changes. The Greens have stopped about half of those 116 new coal and gas projects from going ahead. We've secured a hard cap on pollution which means pollution will actually now go down and not up, and the coal and gas corporations can't just buy their way out of it with offsets—dodgy or otherwise.

We've secured a pollution trigger which, for the first time in history, means that the remaining coal and gas projects will be assessed against the hard cap for their impact on the climate and can be stopped. We've derailed both the Beetaloo and Barossa climate bombs. The Beetaloo and many other new offshore gas fields will now be required to be CO2 net zero, casting serious doubts over their viability. That is excellent news for those First Nations communities atop the Beetaloo Basin that have never provided consent to that project and do not want it to go ahead, risking their land and water and our shared climate. We've also secured a range of other amendments, including wiping out many of those dodgy offset projects and methodologies, which will bring us much closer to a future without coal and gas. This is why people put the Greens in the balance of power—to push Labor further and faster on climate and to get action on coal and gas.

Without significant amendments, the Greens will be voting to pass this bill and will back the regulation, but the fight against new coal and gas will not stop. We will fight every single one of those remaining projects. Before we started our negotiations, under Labor's plan actual pollution from coal and gas was going to go up and there was nothing in the safeguard mechanism to stop new coal and gas. Real pollution under the safeguard mechanism must now come down, and a failure by Labor to ensure that happens will mean that Labor is breaking the law. With the safeguard pollution trigger, Labor now has the power to stop coal and gas projects that would breach the pollution cap. Every new project that gets approved from here on in is Labor's direct responsibility.

This fight is not over. If we can grow our movement and get more Greens in this place we'll be able to achieve more. The only obstacle to stopping all new coal and gas in this parliament is Labor, the Liberals and their fossil fuel donors. We need to build community power to overcome them. We'll continue to push to strengthen the environmental laws that will come before parliament later this year. We'll continue to fight fossil fuel subsidies in the budget—the $11 billion of freebies in cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation that the fossil fuel companies get but that ordinary Australians don't get. We'll continue to back the fights of communities right around the country who are fighting those coal and gas projects that are in the pipeline, including in Scarborough and Narrabri. We know that the people are with us. We are in solidarity with First Nations people, with climate scientists, with our Pacific island neighbours and with the majority of people who believe that we shouldn't be making the climate crisis worse by opening new coal and gas.

I'm going to take the opportunity to run the chamber through the effect of the amendments that the Greens have been able to secure. Firstly, we've stopped about half of those 116 new coal and gas projects from going ahead. And, as I mentioned before, it's because we've secured a hard cap on pollution, which means that pollution has to actually go down—it can't go up—and the coal and gas corporations can't buy their way out of it, which will mean that many of those 116 new projects that are in the investment pipeline simply cannot go ahead.

Secondly, we have secured a legislated hard cap on pollution. Before we started negotiation, real pollution under the safeguard could rise, and coal and gas emissions were forecast to go up. For the first time, we can be assured that pollution will go down and not up. Pollution must fall, and offsets won't count to stay under the cap. The polluters can't buy their way out of this hard cap.

Thirdly, we've secured a pollution trigger to stop coal and gas projects. For the first time in history, the government must assess the impact that new coal and gas projects will have on the climate. If a new project is going to lift overall pollution, the government must act to stop it going up, including by restricting or stopping the project. If they don't act, they'll be breaking the law. This is a huge barrier to new coal, oil and gas projects proceeding.

Fourthly, we've derailed the proposed Beetaloo basin gasfield, which I just referred to. We've derailed that mass fracking of that carbon bomb. The reason for that is that the project will now face an extra cost of an estimated $1 billion a year as they're forced to offset all their emissions—all. This is a huge financial barrier in the way of a project proceeding, by forcing them to be net zero from day one, and it brings its viability into serious question, which we celebrate.

Fifth, we've derailed the proposed Barossa gasfield. Tiwi Islanders who've been fighting this project will have received a huge boost, as Santos will now be required to offset all its CO2 emissions—again, placing a huge financial hurdle in the way of this dirty and unwanted project that does not have First Nations consent.

The sixth thing we were able to achieve through our negotiations was to require new offshore gas fields to be net zero. New gas fields feeding existing LNG plants will require their CO2 emissions to be net zero—again, putting further hurdles in the way of new gas. We've stopped dodgy offset projects. We've helped stop the greenwashing of the safeguard mechanism. Low-integrity offset projects generating human-induced regeneration ACCUs—Australian carbon credit units—will be stopped until they go through an independent audit. This could take up to a quarter of future offsets out of circulation. This will force more onsite pollution cuts from companies. Companies will also have to report on and justify their use of offsets to make it easier to fight corporate greenwashing.

We've stopped coal and gas funding. The Industry Research and Development Act, which is the law that the Liberal and National parties used in order to hand out millions in fossil fuel subsidies and grants to projects such as Beetaloo, will be changed to ban coal and gas funding. The new Powering the Regions Fund also cannot be used to fund coal and gas. In fact, about an hour ago we successfully stopped the National Reconstruction Fund from being used to fund new coal and gas as well.

We've limited toxic methane. Methane, as I hope people know, is a more damaging global warming gas than even carbon dioxide, and it's the main pollution from coalmines. Methane monitoring of coal and gas projects will now be toughened, leading to deeper cuts again in pollution. We've secured sector-by-sector pathways to net zero. The Climate Change Authority will have to provide advice on the development of net sectoral transition and emission pathways for the purposes of guiding future policy and investment decisions. And detailing sectoral pathways to net zero will make it much harder for new coal and gas projects to be financed.

So, coal and gas have taken a big hit, thanks to the amendments secured by the Greens, but the fight is far from over. We were demanding no new coal, oil or gas. The UN Secretary-General, the IPCC and the International Energy Agency were demanding no new coal or gas. That is what the science requires. We just got a lecture on the laws of the economy. I see you, and I raise you the laws of physics. You can't argue with the climate crisis. It's not going to be fooled by the dodgy accounting tricks that we saw in the original version. I am so pleased that we have been able to strengthen this mechanism, and I am so pleased that with this hard cap we will now have prohibited about half of those 116 coal and gas projects from proceeding. That is a great first step, but we are coming for the rest.

We have now given the government the ability to assess the climate pollution of all of these projects, and we will be urging them to reject every single project, as I am sure will the community—well, anyone who cares about a livable future. Side-by-side with First Nations communities, we will fight every single one of those remaining coal and gas projects, and we will fight side-by-side with coal workers and gas workers in existing communities who want an economic future, who want a diverse future for their region and who want a say in what comes next as the world continues to turn away from dirty fuels and embraces clean energy. My colleague Senator Allman-Payne has done some wonderful work in that regional transition space, and we hope to have some good announcements to make on that in the months to come.

We're all in this together. I am sick of the fossil fuel companies buying the outcomes that suit their private profits, buying off the people in this place. It is not a democracy; it has been a plutocracy until now. I'm so pleased that the fossil fuel companies are hopping mad about these changes. It was so heartening to see their stocks fall yesterday, particularly those of Tamboran, the company that is mostly behind the Beetaloo basin. I look forward to genuinely making the transition to a 100 per cent clean, renewable economy, with all of the jobs, all of the hope and all of the prosperity that that can provide to Australia and the world. We've taken a step along the way. It is certainly not enough, but it's a step in the right direction.

I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 and, as the first government speaker on this bill, to note it is an important piece of legislation for us to pass. I think I can characterise the debate that we will be having over the next couple of hours and maybe over the next couple of days. We are probably going to hear quite a lot of scaremongering from those opposite, even though they had 10 years of opportunity to do something when it came to delivering energy policy. They failed to do that, and they haven't negotiated with us on this legislation. So they are going to sit there and scaremonger and talk about all the things that they could have, would have, should have done but didn't do. Respectfully to my colleagues at the end of the chamber, there will be some overselling of some of the things that they claim they negotiated through. I hope that they are genuine and reflect the actual impact of those amendments and how they will be used by the regulators and ministers to achieve this outcome. I hope that we don't see mischaracterisation of those amendments, but we know there is a political objective here to claim that more was one through this process than was actually achieved. What I do know, from the government point of view, is that this is government legislation. We're proud to be bringing it to the parliament. Without a Labor government, we wouldn't be seeing any action at all on climate change.

This is a critical element of the Albanese Labor government's comprehensive effort to address climate change. This legislation provides long-awaited certainty and vision for Australia's response to climate change. It is an opportunity to reduce emissions from our biggest emitters for the very first time in a decade. Our policy is reasonable, sensible and consistent with the commitments that we made at the election. Ten long years have been wasted until this point. It's precious time that we can't get back, which is why the passage of this bill is so urgent. We know that industry has been calling for far too long for this policy to be settled. Manufacturers, and heavy industry in particular, have been crying out for stability and certainty in the energy space, and today we're delivering it, because we know that jobs and our environment rely on this certainty.

The passage of this legislation will also give certainty to regional Australians, who have been left in a holding pattern for far too long. Farmers, who see the impact physically manifest in their own backyards, their workplaces, deserve certainty and ambition. Regional workers, who have powered our nation for decades, deserve clarity on what our changing industry environment will mean for the jobs they have now and the jobs they will have in the future—because let's be clear about this. This is a world of opportunity for regional industry, in renewables and modern manufacturing.

First Nations communities also deserve our urgent and comprehensive action. Too often they are the communities on the front lines of climate change. I have spoken many times before in this chamber about the Torres Strait, and it's worth repeating in this debate today. On my last visit to the Torres Strait, I spent time with Councillor Hilda Mosby in Masig. Masig is one of the islands that make up the Torres Strait. It is a beautiful, abundant home for a strong community of leaders, fishers and teachers. But Councillor Mosby took me on a drive around the perimeter of the island and showed me some of the areas of concern at risk of climate damage. Right now, the Masig community is quite literally contending with the loss of some areas of the island which have profound cultural significance. This is the case for the Torres Strait. There is no time to waste. Yet in this parliament, under the former government, we wasted 10 years. In fact, for the Torres Strait Islanders, our climate response should have been settled many yesterdays ago.

This is the case for many communities across the country and many types of people who just want to see an end to the climate wars. They await our action with understandable anxious impatience. This is not to say that we want to deliver hasty or sloppy policy. This is a reform that has been widely consulted on, and it has broad support from across the economy and the community. It is never easy to make significant changes and keep everyone in the tent, but it has always been our government's approach to listen, to take expert advice, to find points of agreement and to deliver on our commitments. This policy is about sharing the load of this effort across our economy. It was carefully designed to cut pollution in our biggest industrial emitters while being mindful of the need to minimise costs and allow flexibility for the least-cost abatement opportunities to be deployed. It will provide strong investment signals and provide a balanced scheme that is effective, equitable and simple.

On the other hand, we know that the former government left this policy in a state of chaos. A decade of inconsistent policymaking demonstrated to Australia that the world the former government lived in was plagued by inconsistency and disunity. For almost a decade in government—and still now—they couldn't agree on a target or a mechanism to deliver it. They hid power price rises from the Australian people before the election. They vetoed job-creating renewable energy jobs just because they didn't like renewable energy. They had 22 energy policies during their time in government—22—and really they couldn't land a single one. And why? We know why they are opposing this bill again and why they are scaremongering and making baseless claims. It's because fundamentally they are opposed to action on climate change and they want to continue the climate wars.

On this side of the chamber, we're happy to talk about the facts of this policy, the things that it will do, the jobs that it will protect and the jobs that it will create. We're not interested in dealing with scaremongering or talking about the concept of climate denialism. You'll see that from other members in this chamber. You'll see that from members of the Liberal and National parties. But this is our government's response to climate action. We are reducing emissions, we are working with industry, we are delivering funding to the regions, we are ensuring that our government delivers on the commitments that it took to the election, and we are doing this by taking the community, industry, businesses and workers with us. This is what Labor governments do, and only Labor governments can do this important work. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I too rise to speak on this Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. Despite its name, what is going to become very apparent, throughout the course of this debate, is there is nothing safe about this bill.

In the first instance, what do we know? What we know is the Greens tail is, yet again, wagging the Labor dog. Why do we say that? Because we've seen a big announcement that a dirty deal has, yet again, been done with the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. The government has—yet again, because it is the Greens tail wagging the Labor dog—capitulated to the demands of the Greens. In capitulating to the demands of the Greens, what has the government actually done? It is literally ensuring an energy crisis for our country.

I know that Senator Duniam, in leading the debate from the opposition side, would love to have spoken about the dirty deal that's been done with the Australian Greens. But, as he reminds me, despite Senator Waters standing up and talking about the deal, talking about the amendments that are going to be moved, what is so disappointing in coming to this debate—of what is an incredibly complex piece of legislation—is not one amendment has been tabled by either the government or the Australian Greens. And you have the audacity to say that we are not participating, in this debate, in good faith.

Let me be very, very clear. Those of us on this side of the chamber support action on climate change. In fact, not only do we support action on climate change but also we have a track record in government of delivering action on climate change. But guess what we will never ever do? We will never support doing it like those on the other side are about to do tonight and tomorrow: by putting in place economy-wrecking measures like this terrible bill does.

When I reflect on the nine years that we had in government, our record is a very clear. Our record stands. We have been able to reduce emissions to reach a cleaner future, but, at the same time—and this is the balance that those on the other side don't have any regard to—ensuring Australia remains strong, prosperous and independent. Let's look at what we did manage to achieve.

The economy, whilst achieving emissions reductions, was still able to grow by 23 per cent over nine years in office. We met and exceeded Australia's Kyoto target, we signed Australia on to achieving net zero by 2050 and we reduced emissions by over 20 per cent on our 2005 base level. In fact, what that did was put Australia well on track to meet and beat our Paris treaty commitments. So guess what? You can take action on climate change but, at the same time, do it responsibly so that you don't destroy the economy. You see, when you destroy the economy you destroy jobs.

What we are seeing now, as the bill is now being debated in the Australian Senate, is quite literally—major coal companies have come out tonight, it's being reported, and they are warning this, and these are the people who would know what the impact of this legislation is going to have—the experts are saying this: they are warning that Anthony Albanese's deal with the Greens to pass Labor's signature climate policy is 'a carbon tax by stealth' and this is the problem 'that will drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment'. That is a recipe for disaster. That is what the experts are saying. It will drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment.

Whitehaven, New Hope, Bowen Coking Coal and Peabody Australia have condemned Labor's 11th hour safeguard mechanism shake-up amid concerns—this is them talking, those who would know, the experts—as Senator Duniam said, that the changes would damage prosperity and make it harder and more expensive to reduce emissions, which is a little ironic given the purpose of the bill is to reduce emissions.

This is what's so interesting about these companies. They collectively represent $15 billion worth of a fossil fuel projects and count billions of dollars of investment in their pipeline. Now, 'investment in their pipeline' actually means more jobs, but let's not worry about that. They actually say this as well: 'The government's proposed amendments will make Australia uncompetitive.' This goes back to driving up energy prices, destroying jobs and killing foreign investment, with the assessment being that this bill, if and when it passes—and we know it will, because a dirty deal has been done—will actually make Australia uncompetitive. Who in their right mind would not listen to the experts, who are saying that Australia is going to become uncompetitive—you're going to drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment—unless you're an ideological zealot and you do not care about the impact of this bill on Australia and Australians?

When we were in government, we did take action on climate change, but I tell you: we'd never take action on climate change that compromised Australians' jobs and compromised their cost of living in terms of being unable to turn the lights on. How many reports do you need to hear as a government—10 months in—of people having to choose between turning their lights on and eating, turning their lights on and paying their mortgage, and turning the lights on an paying the school fees?

They don't care. They'll be worse off.

Senator Hughes, you are right. It is not even winter yet. What is the government going to say to those people? It made certain promises to them prior to the election, promises that they took in good faith and actually voted for. One promise, which they're never going to get, was that it would reduce energy bills by $275; instead, this is what we are now seeing, and that's before this bill goes through. Electricity prices are continuing to spiral out of control under Labor, with new increases of up to 23.7 per cent for households. That money doesn't just fall into people's pockets by accident; they've got to go and find that additional money. There's a 25.7 per cent increase for small businesses—again, small businesses are battling as it is. Where do they find an additional 25.7 per cent on their energy bill?

What's worse, though, is the proposed increase to the default market offer. That's going to directly affect around half a million households across Australia, and guess what—they are not going to be better off; they are going to be worse off. You would think it was the opposition putting this forward, but it's not us at all! This is the analysis that has been undertaken. The proposed increases to the default market offer will ensure that more than half a million households across Australia will be worse off. If you're in New South Wales, that's up to $564 per year. So much for electing the Albanese government, who told you they would lower your energy bills! Well, that's not happening. You're not getting the $275 taken off. The increase in the default market offer means you're going to be worse off—by up to $564 a year in New South Wales, $485 a year in South Australia and $383 a year in South-East Queensland. I mean, seriously!

This isn't the only thing that's breaking people's bank. More than 100,000 small businesses will also be impacted by increase in bills of up to $1,151 a year. Again, I don't know where these small businesses will find this additional money. It gets worse, though. It gets worse! This comes on top of increases announced in Victoria of, on average, 31.1 per cent for households and an enormous 33.2 per cent for small businesses. That is on top of 400,000 families and 55,000 businesses that will be hit by unprecedented price rises.

What does the government think is going to happen? What does it honestly think is going to happen when the major coal companies are saying, 'We are the experts, and guess what—the bill that you are going to pass'—in fact, it's not the bill they're going to pass; it's actually going to be way worse. We haven't seen the amendments, but we heard Senator Waters give us an outline that this is only step 1; steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 are well and truly on their way. In addition to all of the price rises that are currently being felt because of decisions that you are making and because of your failure to understand one word when it comes to gas—that is, supply; getting more supply into the market is how you put downward pressure on prices, but you don't know that—you are actually going to pass a bill that companies are saying will drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment. As reported in the Australian:

With coal Australia's largest export industry … Global coal demand is at the highest level in history and it's fanciful to think that reducing our high-quality—

note: high quality—

exports in the face of record demand will do anything other than drive up energy and steel prices, create a net increase global emissions—

that's a great result for everybody here when they cross to the other side of the chamber and support the bill. You could drive up energy and steel prices, create a net increase in global emissions and, on top of that—

… destroy Australian jobs, both in regions and in cities.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you are seeking to achieve with this bill.

It is possible to take action on climate change. It is possible to take action to reduce emissions but at the same time balance the economy, balance increasing productivity and balance ensuring that Australians are not being subjected to record-high energy prices and that Australians are not losing their jobs. But you are ideological zealots who don't care about the economy, who don't care about the average Australian and who don't care about the increase in costs that they are seeing on a daily basis.

I look at my home state of Western Australia. The president of Peabody's Australian operations said:

… the company was concerned the legislation would "make the mining industry less competitive at a time when it's integral to providing the minerals and energy required for the energy transition".

Mining and resources are an integral part of our economy, and you have the president of Peabody's Australian operations saying that you're going to make the mining industry less competitive. What else can you make less competitive in this country? Seriously! It's the Midas touch in reverse. Everything you touch, you are making less competitive. Everything you touch, you are increasing the price on. Every promise you made prior to the election, you are not standing by. And you don't seem to care.

People took you at your word when you made promises to them. People took you at your word that you would tackle inflation, tackle interest rates, tackle the rising cost of living and tackle energy price increases. Yet piece after piece of legislation that is going through this place is doing nothing to tackle those increasing costs for Australians. As I said, you see what the experts are now saying: this piece of legislation is going to have a detrimental impact on the Australian economy. It is going to have a detrimental impact on jobs. It is going to have a detrimental impact on energy prices. As the experts say, it is going to make Australia a less competitive place to do business.

That's the lot we now live with in Australia. You are walking in lock step with the Australian Greens. Yet again, history is about to repeat itself. The sad thing is, we'll see in the future what suffering this bill brings to the Australian people. We'll see in the future how this bill wrecks our economy and how it makes life more difficult for all Australians. To those on the other side, in concert with the Australian Greens: shame on you. You should hang your heads in shame.

Last week the IPCC sounded a final warning alarm on the climate crisis. This crisis began over 250 years ago in this country, with colonisation. Climate change and its root causes cannot be separated from colonisation. First Nations people are hit first and worst by the impacts of climate change, yet they have benefited the least from the dirty, polluting industries that the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 targets. These are industries that have generated trillions of dollars of stolen wealth, all at the cost of polluting and killing our lands, our waters and our skies. We are in a climate crisis, though I would like to remind you all that the majority of First Nations people have been in crisis every day since colonisation, as we have been pushed off our land and forced to stand back and watch the colonial project destroy our lands and waters in the pursuit of extracting fossil fuels. For this reason there can be no climate justice without First Nations justice.

The UN Secretary-General has called last week's report a final warning, a code red for humanity, a clarion call to do everything, everywhere, all at once. How many times have we heard such urgent and desperate calls to action fall on deaf ears? In every new report he is forced to come up with new words to try to convey the urgency and seriousness of this message, and yet every time this happens the Australian government ignores this message and continues to bleed this land dry and pollute its waters and skies. This land is our mother, and we are killing her. Every time a new coal pit is dug, she is wounded. With every new fracking well that is driven into her veins, she bleeds.

I appreciate the government's efforts to cut emissions and bring forward the decarbonisation of heavy polluting industries. I commend the work of the Greens in securing an agreement which makes this bill and its rules something to not be completely ashamed of, which is what most climate bills in the last three decades have been. With the agreed changes, we will finally see genuine cuts to emissions in the biggest industries that are responsible for 30 per cent of our domestic emissions, not to mention all the emissions that occur overseas from exported products. I support the agreed changes that the Greens have secured and have been in conversation with the government around some additional changes to go one step further in their climate action and to ensure First Nations people do not get left behind.

This is particularly in relation to fracking in the Beetaloo. I have heard from First Nations people across the continent about the harms posed by fracking and their unanimous opposition to these dirty projects. First Nations people have resisted the extraction of fossil fuels, especially fracking, for decades. First Nations people across the Beetaloo right now are desperately calling for fracking to stop and for the protection of their cultural heritage, and yet, rather than listen to the voices of grassroots First Nations people, this government has not yet ruled out supporting fracking in the Beetaloo.

A recent freedom of information request exposed a secret report to the National Indigenous Australians Agency that concluded that traditional owners in the Beetaloo basin won't benefit economically, socially or culturally from the fracking of their country. This report obtained under FOI also stated that traditional owners are at a clear disadvantage when negotiating with gas giants. Anyone who has actually spoken to any First Nations people in the Beetaloo region will tell you about the manufactured consent that has been obtained by land councils and how hard it is for them to have their basic rights upheld.

When it comes to the Beetaloo, the government has stated publicly that it is committed to implementing recommendation 9.8 of the Pepper scientific inquiry into fracking in the Northern Territory, which ensures the gas industry is required to offset all scope 1 and 2 emissions and domestic scope 3 emissions. I support the government and the Greens ensuring that all scope 1 emissions will need to be offset, and I support the referral of scope 2 and 3 emissions in the Beetaloo to the ministerial climate change and energy council. However, this does not go far enough. I foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment seeking assurance from the government that, following the review by the council, they will ensure scope 2 emissions in the Beetaloo will need to be offset. Fracking the Beetaloo makes no sense from a climate point of view. Most importantly, there is still no consent from the First Nations people. Given the clear disadvantage of traditional owners when negotiating with gas giants and their almost unanimous opposition to fracking, which came out of the report recently released under FOI, this government must prevent any further activity in the Beetaloo unless and until genuine free, prior, and informed consent has been obtained. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the lands—

How many times has that happened today?

Is that racism? Can I just call out racism in this chamber right now, please? Acting Deputy President, I call it out.

Point of order.

Point of order?

We've just had an accusation made in this chamber, and I would like Senator Thorpe to withdraw.

Senator Hughes, you have a point of order?

Yes. I'd just like to point out that Senator Thorpe has just made a comment about me that I think she should withdraw in its inference—in fact, its direct calling.

Senator Thorpe?

Acting Deputy President, what are you asking me to do?

Senator Thorpe, I've just had a point of order that you actually made—

Do you want me to finish reading it?

I did hear what Senator Hughes said, and—

And you don't see that as racist?

That is not my call to make. However—are you making a point of order?

I'm making a point of order that I am in my workplace, and I don't need racists being racist to me while I'm reading my speech. Can you make sure that I am not targeted with racism while I'm trying to do my job, please?

T he ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes?

I don't think it's appropriate for Senator Thorpe to be referring to anyone in this place as racist, and I would ask her to withdraw. That is absolutely inappropriate, and I will not be referred to by you as anything, let alone that. You need to—

Senator Hughes, take your seat.

Senator Hughes, you are not helping.

Senator Hughes and Senator Thorpe! Thank you. Senator Thorpe, I heard what Senator Hughes said, and I didn't hear anything that was—

No. Senator Thorpe, if you would like a review of the Hansard, I can certainly ask for a review of the Hansard.

I would like that please, because I will not stand for racism in my workplace.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Senator Thorpe, you are not helping the situation by repeating that claim about Senator Hughes. I would ask that you withdraw that imputation.

I will not withdraw until you understand that I have just been racially vilified while I'm reading my speech.

If it might assist the chamber, there is obviously a disagreement that has gone on here. I think your suggestion that the Hansard be reviewed and that the President or yourself come back to the chamber at a later date might be the best way to facilitate this evening.

I would just like to make the point that the constant reference to Australians who were born here from a different heritage being referred to as colonisers is not helpful in any way. Perhaps we need to refer to the Hansard in more ways than one.

Senator Hughes and Senator Thorpe: I will confer with the President, and also the Clerk. We will review the Hansard, and we will come back and report back to the Senate.

Acting Deputy President, I appreciate that. Can I continue to read my speech?

You have the call.

I was acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land and waters, air and sky of what we now call the Beetaloo and connected basins. The traditional owners are still protecting country from desecration. They come from many nations and clans, but they have come together to fight for country—what do you know? I salute them and I support them 100 per cent. Everyone in this place must listen to their voices. They are standing united against the desecration of their lands, against the poisoning of their waters. They fight for country like their ancestors, their law men and women, how our old people have always looked after this country before the colonisers came, before they rocked up on their boats. Through my amendments to the second reading motion and in the Committee of the Whole, I am bringing their fight into this chamber—not outside; into this chamber. I hope to get support from all of you on this—well, some.

My second reading amendment also seeks to ensure that First Nations people are given opportunities in carbon offset projects. While I am of the view that we should be cutting emissions as much as possible and as quickly as possible before using offsets, I recognise that there are genuine land-based solutions to drawing down carbon. This includes First Nations management of country, including sea country. This includes but is not limited to savanna burning. It involves cultural burns; managing feral animals, like wild boars; and land regeneration. Projects on sea country include but are not limited to the cultivation and harvesting of seaweed and kelp. Our people have been farming seaweed since time immemorial for food, fibre and medicine. Seaweed farming also offers opportunities for reducing methane emissions in agriculture by using seaweed as a supplement in cattle feed.

I will seek to ensure that First Nations people are at the forefront of leading these projects in their own waters. This amendment also calls on the government to ensure their support for First-Nations-led verification assessments in carbon sequestration projects. This means that First Nations people can assess the environmental, social and cultural values of carbon farming and sequestration projects. This must also be paired with investment in training for these purposes in First Nations communities—in all First Nations communities, including mob in regional and remote areas and on missions and reserves. I will continue working with the government and hope to get their support for this amendment. I look forward to continue working with the government and others in this parliament to ensure that First Nations justice remains at the core of climate action in this country. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) in line with its commitment to implementing Recommendation 9.8 of the final report of the Pepper Scientific Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracturing in the Northern Territory, ensure the gas industry in the Northern Territory's Beetaloo Basin is required to offset all Scope 2 emissions, in addition to referring this matter to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council and working with the Northern Territory Government to achieve this, and

(b) support First Nations communities in carbon sequestration projects on Country, including but not limited to savanna burning, and on Sea Country, including but not limited to kelp farming; and

(c) support First Nations-led verification assessment of environmental, social and cultural values of carbon farming and sequestration projects and invest in training for these purposes in First Nations communities, including but not limited to communities in regional and remote areas and on missions and reserves".

The Senat e transcript was published up to 22:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.