Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Broadcasting Services Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 includes a range of six measures to reduce regulatory burden, reform outdated regulations that are no longer fit for purpose and enable Australia's media industry to continue to provide services and content valued by audiences across the country.

Schedule 1 to the bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to reduce the expenditure required by subscription broadcast channel providers and licensees on new eligible drama expenditure from 10 per cent to five per cent.

These amendments will reduce the regulatory burden on channel providers and licensees, and form part of a broader set of reforms to the regulation of Australian content announced by this government on 30 September 2020. These reforms include measures to: modernise Australian content rules for commercial free-to-air broadcasters (including simplifying and reducing obligations); and provide greater support for the production and distribution of Australian content, particularly in drama, documentary and children's content.

The changes to the drama expenditure requirement for subscription broadcasters included in the bill reform unsustainable obligations on the industry and create a more consistent regulatory framework. They are part of a package of measures that will enable Australians to continue to have access to Australian content across a range of mediums, regardless of whether they prefer to watch free-to-air television, subscription television or streaming services.

The bill proposes allowing future rules for subscription television captioning to made via ministerial instrument. The captioning rules for subscription television captioning are very complex. There is limited transparency for consumers in the level of captioning on different subscription television channels.

The current exemption and application processes mean that captioning targets can be altered during the year and even during the annual reporting process. Exemptions are not based on objective criteria, so there is no transparency as to why some services are exempt and some are not.

The application process for exemptions is onerous for licensees and for the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The subscription television industry, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and consumer groups support a simplified and more transparent framework for subscription television captioning.

The proposed instrument to govern future subscription television captioning requirements will be a disallowable instrument and the existing legislation would not lapse until the disallowance period passes.

The bill proposes to remove the existing requirement on regional and remote television broadcasters to provide additional captioning on free-to-air multichannels beyond that provided by metropolitan TV broadcasters.

This requirement is an anomaly that arose from the change of regional network affiliations in 2016. The removal of this additional obligation will help viewers in regional and remote areas to continue receiving access to the multichannels.

The bill proposes enabling a retrospective application of grandfathering powers to protect radio broadcasters from potential breaches when the Australian Communications and Media Authority makes a population determination under section 30 of the Broadcasting Services Act.

The proposal also includes a sunsetting provision of five years for the application of these amended grandfathering powers. This clearly signals to licensees the government's commitment to review the state of the market and their provision of services in relation to these provisions.

These proposed arrangements will support broadcasters in meeting their requirements while balancing net population movements that affect licence population areas, under the section 30 determinations, and having regard to market conditions supporting competition and low barriers for new licensees.

The bill also proposes to make two minor amendments to ensure that the provisions for the broadcasting industry remain current.

The first amendment proposed would remove a redundant requirement for digital radio planning in the Radiocommunications Act 1992. Digital radio could previously be provided in different parts of the spectrum, but now the standard has been reduced to one. There is, therefore, no requirement for planning within a licence area to ensure that all channels are within the same spectrum band.

The second amendment proposed is to add an additional time frame to that currently provided for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation program to enable funding delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic to be allocated beyond 1 July 2021.

These measures demonstrate the government's commitment to reform and streamline regulation across the broadcasting industry.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (09:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 amends the Migration Act to clarify that, in line with Australia's international obligations relating to non-refoulement, the removal power in the Migration Act does not require or authorise removal of a person where they have been assessed as engaging those obligations.

Furthermore, the bill improves our ability to assess if a person engages protection obligations, regardless of whether or not they fail to satisfy other criteria for the grant of a protection visa.

Australia is party to many treaties which uphold human rights. Non-refoulement obligations arise under:

the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol;

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and

the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Under these treaties, Australia has an obligation not to return individuals to situations where they face: persecution; a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary deprivation of life; or the application of the death penalty.

We take these obligations very seriously.

However, a number of court decisions have made it clear that section 197C, which was inserted to limit successful injunctions to prevent removal where a person has been assessed as not engaging protection obligations, also operates to require removal where the person has been assessed as engaging those obligations.

This is quite obviously not reflective of the original intent of section 197C under the Migration Act.

This bill seeks to address this disconnect by making it clear that the Migration Act does not require or authorise the removal of a person to a country in relation to which the person has been assessed in the statutory protection visa process as facing persecution or a real risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary deprivation of life or the application of the death penalty. This change will improve our nation's ability to uphold human rights.

But this bill goes one step further. It does not just clarify that we are not obliged to remove a person in breach of our international obligations. It improves our ability to ensure that people who lodge valid protection visa applications will have their protection claims assessed in all cases.

Under the current Migration Act, a person seeking Australia's protection can lodge an application for a protection visa unless they are barred from doing so. But where those applicants fail certain criteria, it is possible under the Migration Act for the person's protection visa application to be refused without those protection claims being considered.

Under the amendments proposed by this bill, a person who has lodged a valid protection visa application will alwayshave their protection claims assessed.

This is an important change which will further improve our ability to ensure that we uphold Australia's non-refoulementobligations. It is essential that Australia sends a strong message that we are committed to upholding human rights, and that we remain steadfast in our commitment to these treaties and their underlying principles.

This bill protects the integrity of Australia's migration framework and it deserves the support of all members. It does present an opportunity for those within this parliament to stand up and demonstrate their ongoing commitment to human rights by ensuring that we are not obliged to remove a person from Australia where that removal would be in breach of non-refoulement obligations, and by ensuring that those who lodge a valid protection visa application can always have their claims assessed.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:42): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Airservices Australia—Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centre and Control Tower Complex Refurbishment.

Airservices Australia is proposing to refurbish the existing air traffic services centre and control tower complex within the Brisbane air traffic services centre compound. This will deliver support facilities for the new civil and military air traffic management system. These works are integral milestones in the OneSKY Australia Program—a partnership between Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence to replace the current independent civil and Defence air traffic management systems with an advanced integrated system.

The proposed works will provide fit-for-purpose facilities to support the initial and ongoing training of operational users and provide technical support throughout the life of the new air traffic management system. The estimated cost of the works is $35.7 million, excluding GST.

The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 1 December 2020. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approvals, the works are expected to commence in quarter 3 of 2021 and be completed in quarter 2 of 2022.

On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:45): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Airservices Australia—Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport Tower Refurbishment Project.

Airservices Australia is undertaking a national program to replace the current tower technology system air traffic controllers use to track and communicate with aircraft with an Integrated Tower Automation Suite—INTAS. The capacity and availability of the current electrical and mechanical services in the Sydney airport tower would not support the transition to INTAS. The proposed project involves a refurbishment and upgrade to extend the tower's design life and meet current building codes and standards; modernise and enhance the building's amenities; and enable the facility to support the transition to INTAS. The estimated cost of the works is $24.6 million, excluding GST.

The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 1 December 2020. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is planned to commence as soon as possible and with an expected completion date of September 2022.

On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry and I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:47): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Perth Precinct Project.

As Australia's leading multidisciplinary research organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, known as CSIRO, requires facilities that are fit for purpose, support science and are of a standard that will attract and retain leading researchers and scientists. CSIRO is proposing to undertake refurbishment works at three of its four sites located in the Perth Precinct: Floreat, Kensington and Waterford. The works are consistent with CSIRO's 2019-29 Property Strategy, which seeks to align CSIRO's property footprint with the future needs of the organisation, improve utilisation of property and maximise investment of limited funds in key sites. The estimated costs of the works is $19 million, excluding GST.

The works were referred to the PWC on 11 November 2020. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in April 2021 and with completion expected in February 2022.

On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry and I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (09:50): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together:

(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 6 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item, substitute:

1 Subsection 51AE(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) If regulations prescribe an industry code (other than a code that relates to the industry of franchising), the industry code may prescribe a pecuniary penalty not exceeding 600 penalty units for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of the code.

(2A) If regulations prescribe an industry code that relates to the industry of franchising, the industry code may do the following:

(a) prescribe that the pecuniary penalty for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of the code by a body corporate is the greatest of the following:

(i) $10,000,000;

(ii) if the Court can determine the value of the benefit that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, has obtained directly or indirectly and that is reasonably attributable to the contravention—3 times the value of that benefit;

(iii) if the Court cannot determine the value of that benefit—10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the period of 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the contravention occurred;

(b) prescribe that the pecuniary penalty for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of the code by a person who is not a body corporate is $500,000;

(c) if the code does not prescribe a pecuniary penalty mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of the code—prescribe a pecuniary penalty not exceeding 600 penalty units for the contravention.

(2B) An expression used paragraph (2A)(a) has the same meaning as in paragraph 76(1A)(b).

(2) Schedule 3, item 2, page 6 (after line 14), at the end of the item, add:

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this Schedule affects the validity of regulations made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 before the commencement of this item.

(3) Schedule 4, page 7 (lines 1 to 26), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 4—Modification power

Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Act 2020

1 Schedule 5

Repeal the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 5—Modification of information and other requirements

1 Modification of information and other requirements

(1) This item applies in relation to a provision (an affected provision) of an Act or a legislative instrument that requires or permits any of the following matters (a relevant matter):

(a) the giving of information in writing;

(b) the signature of a person;

(c) the production of a document by a person;

(d) the recording of information;

(e) the retention of documents or information;

(f) the witnessing of signatures;

(g) the certification of matters by witnesses;

(h) the verification of the identity of witnesses;

(i) the attestation of documents.

(2) A responsible Minister for an affected provision may, by legislative instrument, determine that, to the extent that the affected provision relates to a relevant matter:

(a) the affected provision is varied as specified in the determination in relation to a period specified in the determination; or

(b) the affected provision does not apply in relation to a period specified in the determination; or

(c) the affected provision does not apply, and that another provision specified in the determination applies instead, in relation to a period specified in the determination.

(3) The period specified in a determination made under subitem (2) may be a period that starts before this item commences.

(4) A responsible Minister for an affected provision must not make a determination under subitem (2) in relation to the affected provision unless the responsible Minister is satisfied that the determination is in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

(5) For the purposes of this item, a responsible Minister for an affected provision is:

(a) if the affected provision is a provision of an Act—any Minister who administers that Act; or

(b) if the affected provision is a provision of a legislative instrument—any Minister who administers the enabling legislation (within the meaning of the Legislation Act 2003) under which that legislative instrument is made.

(6) A determination made under subitem (2) has effect accordingly.

(7) A determination made under subitem (2) has no operation after 31 December 2021.

(8) This item is repealed at the end of 31 December 2021.

These amendments make minor changes to schedule 3, the industry code penalties under part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act, and amendments to schedule 4 with respect to the modification power.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (09:51): Labor actually welcomes the government's change of mind on the amendments moved in relation to schedule 3. These go to recommendations that were made by the ACCC, when the parliamentary joint committee reviewed the operation of the penalty provisions within the franchising code and related instruments. It's worth retelling the submission of the ACCC to that inquiry. It made the point that its ability to seek civil pecuniary penalties and issue infringement notices was fundamental to the ACCC's enforcement toolkit. The lack of consequences for breaching the franchising codes was undermining the ACCC's ability to ensure code compliance. Where penalties were insufficient, the franchisors were likely to factor that into their egregious behaviour and just build that into the cost of doing business, or doing business unfairly, in respect of their franchisees. Where penalties were unavailable, there's no incentive for a franchisor to comply with the codes. The ACCC noted that the penalties currently available under franchising code were small in comparison to those that were available under the Australian Consumer Law.

The amendment that the minister brings before the House goes some way to addressing that anomaly, and we support it. Indeed we made it well-known at the second reading stage of this bill that, if the government didn't do this, we would be moving amendments here and in the other place to that effect. Labor will be supporting this amendment.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (09:53): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (09:54): I'm pleased to speak in support of the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021. With all respect to my fellow Western Australian, the member for Tangney, who is also the assistant minister who introduced this bill, this is not the stuff that gets headlines. It doesn't attract attention. For many people it is pretty dry—just dealing with red tape and improving the regulation of certain occupations and industries. For those who don't work in those industries or occupations, they won't be aware of the problems that it addresses, nor will they be consciously aware of the benefits which will flow. Yet these reforms introduced by this bill will not just impact upon those who work in these industries; there will also be benefits which flow more widely. These reforms are part of the government's economic recovery plan and complement existing work by governments to reduce red tape for business.

Our first point to note is that these changes are the result of cross-government agreement. In August 2020 the Morrison government announced that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments had agreed to introduce a uniform scheme for the automatic mutual recognition of occupational registrations, subject to the passage of legislation. In December 2020 the Prime Minister, the state premiers and the Northern Territory Chief Minister signed the Intergovernmental Agreement on Automatic Mutual Recognition of Occupational Registration, which included a commitment to monitor the implementation of AMR and to support ongoing improvements in the regulatory environment. The changes presented in this bill represent the most significant reform to Australia's mutual recognition arrangements for occupational registrations since they were introduced in 1992.

In essence, this bill improves occupational mobility and helps our skilled workers take up job opportunities whenever and wherever they arise. This bill introduces a scheme for the automatic mutual recognition, or AMR, of occupational registrations. AMR allows carpenters, electricians, surveyors and other registered professionals to do the same work they are licensed to do at home in other states without applying for additional licences or paying further fees. AMR will remove unnecessary tension in labour markets that makes it costly and time consuming for workers to deliver services across state borders.

Over 19 per cent of Australian workers require a registration or a licence to perform their work. Some occupations, including many within the health sector, are registered nationally. But most trades and other professions, such as builders, plumbers and real estate agents, are registered on a state-by-state basis. Regulatory requirements and processes for most registered professions are managed and set differently in each of the eight states and territories. These differences make it harder for tradespersons and other professionals to move across borders for work, raising the cost for employers to fill job vacancies and reducing competition and choice for consumers.

Issues with the current system have been articulated by numerous professional bodies, including the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA, which has noted that the current system creates disincentives for employers to offer their apprentices opportunities to work across multiple states and territories, and, in turn, ensure that they have constant work. This is because it takes time and it is complex to have their existing studies recognised by regulators across multiple jurisdictions.

Mutual recognition under the existing AMR has helped reduce barriers to occupational mobility across borders for a range of occupations. Around 12 per cent of new occupational registrations were made under mutual recognition in 2019. However, a person is still required to apply and pay for additional registration, even though they have already paid for their current registration in another state or territory.

In a 2015 study the Productivity Commission found that the current mutual recognition arrangements generally work well but that there would be cost savings from automating these processes. The Productivity Commission recommended governments give higher priority to expanding the use of automatic mutual recognition of occupational registrations to improve the efficiency of mutual recognition arrangements for individuals and businesses.

Some of the key benefits of the AMR, which is being introduced through this bill, include increased flexibility and mobility for individuals and businesses so that they can easily move across borders and provide services nationally. It will lead to greater competition, leading to lower prices, greater choice and better-quality service for consumers, including businesses. It will allow individuals and businesses to save on registration fees, on paperwork and on the time involved in filling out that paperwork. It will lead to increased output, investment and productivity and less downtime following infrastructure outages or natural disasters. There will be improved safety from improved information and data sharing across regulators to support compliance and there will be improved performance from regulators adopting a more risk based approach and people with disciplinary actions being excluded from AMR.

On the issue of the benefits, PwC took an economic review of the costs and benefits of AMR in 2020, and it estimated that AMR is expected to increase GDP by $2.4 billion over the 10-year period from 2021 to 2030 from a better allocation of labour and capital in the economy. GDP would be higher over the period due to an increase in labour productivity from administrative savings to individuals and regulators no longer needing to submit or assess multiple occupational registrations. This will lead to an increase in GDP of $1.14 billion over the 10-year period.

There will also be labour productivity benefits as more individuals choose to operate across jurisdictions for part of their working year, better matching registered individuals with jobs where they can deliver the greatest benefit. This will lead to an increase in GDP of $462 million over the 10-year period. And the additional savings that the PwC report identified were through capital productivity from returning to business as usual faster following natural disasters as interstate labour is able to more quickly mobilise to respond to critical and immediate large-scale infrastructure outages. This will lead to an increase in GDP of $808 million over the 10-year period. PwC found that over 124,000 registered people will benefit from reduced administrative costs, and a further 44,000 registered people may benefit from increased labour mobility across sectors and jurisdictions.

The PwC modelling indicated that all jurisdictions will benefit from implementing AMR, with gross state product expected to rise over the 10-year period in each jurisdiction. The modelling does not include potential efficiency gains from removing unnecessary or inconsistent registration requirements over time. Cutting red tape may not attract attention; it may never get a headline, but ensuring that there is an appropriate balance in the regulatory environment to ensure that there are not unnecessary, costly or inefficient regulations while maintaining the standards of protection for consumers, the environment, animal welfare and the safety of workers and the public is actually a very important role for all governments. On this basis I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:02): I rise to speak on the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021 and on the amendments to the bill, which have been circulated in my name. This bill seeks to introduce a uniform scheme of automatic mutual recognition for licenced occupations across the states and territories. The principle of providing greater ease for those with licensed occupations to pursue their trade across the various jurisdictions in Australia is a worthy principle indeed. The bill amends the Mutual Recognition Act of 1992. This act was born of the economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating era. It was a period of significant microeconomic reform. This reform wasn't headlined 'Floating the dollar' or 'Opening up the Australian economy' but was nevertheless an important piece of microeconomic reform at the time.

About 70 per cent of the Australian workforce today is required to obtain a licence in order to undertake their work, and automatic mutual recognition, as I said, enables those who have licences to pursue their work in other states. Back at the time of the Mutual Recognition Act in 1992, then senator John Button, as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, said in respect of mutual recognition:

It is a good example of cooperative federalism at work in the national interest. Honourable senators have said that the aim of mutual recognition is to remove artificial barriers to interstate trade in goods and services and to remove the artificial barriers to the mobility of labour caused by regulatory differences amongst the States. We have had many decades of experience in trying to work with regulatory barriers of that kind, and this legislation will go a long way to improving that situation immensely.

If the legislation does that, it will enhance the competitiveness of the Australian economy. It is a major step forward in the achievement of micro-economic reform and will lead to the establishment of a truly national market.

To that end, the bill which is before us today seeks to build on the mutual recognition regime by applying an automatic component to it. I note that it is part of an intergovernmental agreement which has been signed by all the states. The agreement is due to come into effect on 1 July this year.

To describe in its simplest terms the architecture of automatic mutual recognition, it applies a drivers licence model to licensed occupations. That is to say that, if you have a drivers licence given to you in the state of Victoria, it entitles you to drive in the state of Western Australia. Western Australia would, if you were driving there, have all its enforcement arrangements apply to you. Were you to be speeding in Western Australia, that would reflect on your Victorian drivers licence. That, in effect, is the architecture of the mutual recognition which is being proposed in relation to all licensed occupations in Australia and how people would engage in their trade in jurisdictions other than where they obtain their licence. So the principle of this makes sense.

There are, however, a number of issues which have been raised by a number of stakeholders which are present in our mind as we move forward and which underpin the amendment to the bill I will move. The principle of the drivers licence analogy needs to acknowledge that we have consistent road rules around Australia, but when it comes to a number of licensed occupations there is nothing like the same consistency in the way in which those regulations are in place across the jurisdictions in Australia. An example of that is the licensing of electricians, which varies considerably from state to state. So, while one can see what is sought to be done here, given that nothing like the consistency applies in relation to electrical occupations compared to road rules, which is the basis of the architecture here, there is the risk for unintended consequences to apply.

Those unintended consequences could happen in a couple of ways. The first is that people who are in a jurisdiction where the licensing requirements are not as significant as others may go into another jurisdiction where licensing is stricter and find themselves in a situation where they are not able to comply with the standards of the second jurisdiction. Equally, in seeking to comply with those standards, they may well run afoul of them and then find that that flows back in terms of their ability to pursue their trade in their home state.

To that end, it is the position of Labor that we are seeking an inquiry in the other place in respect of this bill to be clear about how this would impact on various occupations where there is significant divergence in relation to the way in which those regulations apply across the jurisdictions. That is particularly the case in respect of high-risk occupations, electrical trade being an example of that but really so are all the occupations which require licences within the building industry. That is where there is a significant degree of risk. Again, to that end, the amendment that I will move today is to have the licensed occupations which are involved in the building industry removed from the application of this bill. That is the intent of the amendment that is being circulated in my name. That is the amendment to the bill that we will move in this place.

While we acknowledge the direction of this bill, while we acknowledge the intent—the significant benefits in relation to deregulation that it implies and the ability for people to move with greater ease in the working of their trades across jurisdictions—it is important that reforms of this kind are done in a way that doesn't have unintended consequences in relation to the health and safety of those working in the industry and the quality of work that is ultimately done for the consumers of this country. It's important that we look at all of those questions very carefully and that there is the ability to have an inquiry of that kind and move through that process over the next few months so that we are at a point within the parliament to consider this in its finality prior to the implementation date of the intergovernmental agreement, which is 1 July this year.

So, noting the benefits, the principle behind this bill, and noting our concerns about the unintended consequences and the detail of that, and the need to have an inquiry in the other place, and noting with all of that the amendments that we will move in order to deal with that here, Labor will be pursuing this bill on that basis.

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (10:11): I rise to speak on the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021. I strongly support the amendments to this bill to be moved by the shadow minister for national reconstruction, employment, skills and small business. The shadow minister's motion to exclude electrical and construction workers from this bill is essential. Without the amendment, this bill would make the electrical and construction sectors less capable and more dangerous. Put simply, this bill will mean that the same standard will not be applied across the nation, exposing workers to risk and varying the quality of workmanship. This bill seeks to introduce a uniform scheme of interstate automatic recognition into the Mutual Recognition Act. It would allow workers to move interstate with their accreditation and pick up work more easily. It sounds good, but the devil is in the detail. It will open the door to different standards of workmanship across our nation. Ideally, we need a national standard of accreditation that ensures that all employees in a trade are provided with high-quality skills and training that is consistent. This amendment is important now.

The government says that this is about cutting red tape, but in practice it will create inconsistencies in the quality of work in critical industries. Rewiring a house, building foundations for a new home or completing a renovation need to be done to the highest standard. We all need comfort that these works are done to a high standard of safety and quality. We need a national set of regulations, but we also need to ensure that these safeguards are consistent across all states and territories. Without this amendment, we lose the safeguards that are already in place.

So, this bill throws the baby out with the bathwater and it leaves workers vulnerable, and it doesn't guarantee the high quality of workmanship we all have come to expect and value. Right now the system wins out through the oversight by the states. When one state falters and slackens on safety requirements, the current arrangements have built-in checks. When an electrician or a construction worker moves interstate, the new state will monitor their practice. When someone with substandard training moves interstate, they will be identified. States can flag a slackening in standards that is happening in other states, and then they can pressure the licensing state into closer oversight. This is a valuable, natural mechanism through which substandard and unsafe practice is identified and removed from the sector. This is a good thing. It's an effective way of managing risk. But if we pass this bill without the amendment, the checks and balances will be lost.

Labor supports the objective of mutual recognition to enable workers to seamlessly move between states. We certainly believe that, wherever possible, red tape should be removed, and we want to make people's lives easier. It's a worthwhile goal. People should be able to transition their skills across state borders and have freedom of movement within Australia, but it should not be done in a way that puts workers at risk and reduces the high standards within the construction and electrical sectors. Without this amendment, this bill undermines this outcome. The safety of the electrical and construction sectors is paramount. Safe electrical and construction work is something that we must have. We do not want to see serious injury and death. Let me make this point. What is at stake is not just a matter of regulation. This bill could be a matter of life and death for electrical workers, for apprentices learning on the job, for families at home, and for everyone at their places of work, leisure and education. These are high stakes professions, and they must be treated with respect, with national safeguards incorporated in regulations. It's not rocket science, but it is important. We should be trying to harmonise these rules, but we shouldn't be trying to ride roughshod over the differences, because those differences represent differences in real world practices that make a difference to all our safety.

Labor stands firm on defending the right of qualified tradespeople to move around the country and work in different states. We support safe, secure jobs for tradespeople, but we need to ensure that, while workers have this freedom to move, they are protected against risk, and that the quality of work remains consistently high. That is why we need this amendment. I thank the deputy leader of the Labor Party for putting forward this amendment, and I hope that an inquiry into this matter will proceed. Without it, this government will do real harm to workers and families across our nation.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (10:16): My electorate has, to its eastern boundary, the South Australian and Victorian borders. I grew up in, and live in, the city of Mount Gambier. That's 18 kilometres from the Victorian border. All along my electorate's eastern boundary are communities like Mount Gambier that exist in very close proximity to the Victorian border—in many cases much, much closer to the border than Mount Gambier is. Indeed, I have constituents who own property that spans the border. So, when the concept of mutual recognition of licences and registrations was first canvassed in this place, I've got to tell you that I got excited.

A bill like this one—the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 202—is not the kind of legislation that normally gets members of parliament excited, but, when you live in a community that's so close to a jurisdictional state border, you understand the kind of rubbish that you have to deal with because of the difference in regulations and red tape spanning those state borders. In effect, in my community, these borders are nothing more than artificial lines on a map. We traverse them daily and, on many occasions, multiple times a day. That was highlighted during the lockdown. It was increasingly clear to me that, during the lockdown phase of the COVID-19 response, decision-makers were making decisions about cross-border travel in circumstances where they'd never lived in a cross-border community. For many of them, travelling across a border is an opportunity to pull the car over and take a happy snap with the family as you're travelling, for example, into Victoria. In my case, when I had very young children, when they were having trouble sleeping, I would put them in the car and drive them to Victoria because it was a convenient 36-kilometre, two-way trip. Invariably, they'd fall asleep. The joke in our household was that the way we got our children to go to sleep was to drive them to Victoria.

When you live in a community like mine, when you represent a community like mine, stories of frustration experienced by tradesmen and tradeswomen, by real estate agents, by plumbers, by architectures and by others abound. There are examples where an electrician attends a rural property and can work on the homestead but can't work on the shearing shed. There are examples where a real estate agent can sell one portion of a property but not the other and needs to work in consultation and collaboration with, for example, a Victorian real estate agent.

We don't have a lot to thank COVID for, but there are some silver linings on the dark COVID cloud, and I'd respectfully suggest to you, Madam Deputy Chair, that this is one of them. COVID forced the Prime Minister and first ministers to work in an expedited and collaborative way like they've never had occasion to work before. That model thankfully, through the good agency of the assist minister, means that we can achieve this kind of reform which is eminently sensible, is a great example of common sense, but that could never be achieved in the 120 or so years since Federation.

So what does it mean? Well, it means that if you're a tradesman in my electorate and you're qualified in South Australia you don't need to write off to the requisite authority in Victoria for approval to undertake work in Victoria. You can simply move across the border and do that work. The best example which I can give you is this: when you gain your driver's licence you don't then have to register that driver's licence in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania, you're simply entitled to drive. Your driver's licence is acknowledged in a mutual way by those other jurisdictions and so it will be for professions that require licences and registrations across the country. That includes builders, electricians, plumbers, architects, real estate agents, security guards and one profession that I don't think will get a lot of attention in this debate, but is so important, teaching. In my electorate there are very many teachers, very many of whom do occasional and part-time teaching to supplement, perhaps, other incomes or part retirements, who live in Victoria but can't come to where the population centres are in South Australia and teach without going through the unnecessary regulatory steps to seek approval and these things. That's a silly circumstance.

I'm very pleased that this sensible change has met with widespread acclaim. I'm not surprised it has met with the approval of many bodies across the nation. I think this is the kind of sensible reform that shows the parliament and parliaments of this nation at their best. Let me quote the Australian Professional Teachers Association who said, 'Many teachers in one jurisdiction currently do not pursue employment in another jurisdiction because of the red tape and cost involved to simply become registered.' That will be a thing of the past. The Civil Contractors Federation states: 'The implementation of reforms that improve worker mobility and enable them to move more seamlessly between projects and at less cost is critical to achieving a more efficient delivery of Australia's infrastructure pipelines.' It stands to reason. If workers have to pause the work they're doing to seek approval through an administrative process that invariably takes time. Not only does it delay that work, but it acts as a dead weight on productivity in this country.

These reforms, according to PwC, will benefit over 124,000 workers—to be honest, I think that number is set conservatively low—who currently work across borders and will no longer have additional fees associated with their licences or registrations. In addition, an additional 44,000 workers are expected to work across borders following these reforms. I can think of many in my communities who speak to me regularly about simply not quoting on work across the border, because they'd never gotten around to being registered. I think about the many border communities in my electorate and what they went through during COVID-19 because of state border restrictions, and I don't think we have a deep enough appreciation for much of, nor have we seen the full impact of, that psychological sequelae. I'm so pleased that this legislation will provide a direct benefit to them.

I support this bill. It's a winner for those of us that represent cross-border communities. It's a win for common sense. Let's hope we see many more reforms like this because of the architecture that has established itself at the prime ministerial and first-minister levels as a result of COVID. May that be the silver lining on this dark COVID cloud. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:26): It takes a particular kind of arrogance and incompetence to take a really good idea and turn it into something that's a potential threat to people's safety, but that's what the government has done with this bill, the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021. It's a good idea in principle to say that people in this country should have the right to move in between states and take their qualifications with them; I think you'd find most people would agree with that. But when you go below that level of principle and work out how to make it happen you can immediately see that there are some issues that have to be worked through.

If you're an electrician, the rules that apply, the standards that apply and the kinds of equipment that apply—voltages and work practices—might in fact differ from state to state—indeed, potentially even from region to region. That is why at the moment, in many respects, there are state systems of registration and understanding and state levels of training. If you're a teacher, you can very readily see that, because the state governments have so much responsibility for our schools—they set the curriculum and put in place standards to deal with the safety of students and of staff that work there—training in one state might not be automatically applicable to another state. That is why, over many years, the bodies and the people that work in this area—electricians, teachers, others—have put some thought into how you get the right balance to make sure not only that people can move between states but also that public safety and welfare are not compromised. In the electrical industry, mutual recognition—that's the technical term—arrangements already exist. But they take into account those very important issues of safety.

It's also important to understand that the registration system we're talking about here isn't just a licence to work for the worker; it is also in many respects a guarantee for the public. You presume that, if someone is a registered builder or electrician in your state, they're trained to a certain standard and that that work is going to meet a certain quality. That's why, in those industries in particular, they've said that when you move from one state to another there are certain things that have to be complied with in order to have your licence recognised from one state to the next—in part because it's about protection for the public.

You will find universal agreement on the idea that people should be able to work across the different states of Australia. What you will also find, if you bother to look—which the government clearly hasn't—is that the people who are doing the work at the moment and who understand the systems of registration and licensing have put some effort into making sure that you can do it in a way that promotes mobility but doesn't compromise other standards, including standards that protect public safety. So if you wanted to bring a bill to this place that allowed people to move across Australia but also protected standards, you could probably do it. But you'd start by sitting down and talking with the workers and the unions and the employers and the regulators who work in this industry to make sure that you are lifting everyone up to the best standard rather than allowing a race to the bottom

But the government has come along with a special kind of arrogance and complete incomprehension and taken a really good idea and turned it into something that could be a threat to peoples' safety. What they've come along and said is that this will work in a really simplistic way where, even if there are particular standards applying in your state that are about protecting the public or ensuring that work is done to a certain standard, you no longer have to comply with them. The problem with the way the government has done it is that it's going to encourage a race to the bottom. It will mean that, provided you're registered in one state, it automatically applies to another state even if that other state has got higher standards. So the state and territory governments, who've got the responsibility for looking after their people and ensuring that all electrical work or building work, for example, is done according to a certain standard, or that teaching meets certain standards, are now going to have that potentially undercut.

That's why what the government needs to do is take this bill back to the drawing board and go and talk to the people who work in the industry and who understand the system of regulations so that we can have a system of mutual recognition that works for people so that they can cross borders—because that's what we all do in this country—but that also doesn't undermine the standards that are put in place at the state and territory level to protect people. It is good that there are amendments being moved. We will support those amendments to ensure that areas like the electrical industry and construction industry, where so many issues of safety are at play, are exempt from this. But we should go further because the bill can't be supported in its current form.

The teachers union made a very important point in their submission on the draft exposure bill—that this will have a negative impact on children's right to quality and safe education. Their submission, that it's an ill-conceived, unsolicited, redundant and untargeted regulatory intervention, is absolutely right. And it's of a piece with the government's response to the COVID crisis. The government see a crisis and, in that, an opportunity to pursue their trickle-down deregulatory agenda. We've seen that with their removal of the protections consumers have against bad behaviour by big corporations and director and executives. That's exactly what they've tried to do on that front. We have seen it with their approach to handing out billions of dollars in corporate welfare in the hope that somehow it will trickle down to jobs. But it isn't and it won't. Instead public money is being used to help billionaires buy private jets. And we're seeing it here as well. The last speaker said, 'Wouldn't it be great if, coming out of the COVID crisis, there's a silver lining from that dark cloud—and this bill is it.' No, it's not. This bill is using the COVID crisis as an excuse to do something that could potentially undermine standards, public safety and peoples' right to a good education across the country—and that's what the people who are involved in the sector say.

This bill can't be supported in its current form. The government needs to go away and redraft it, in consultation with the people who are going to be affected, and then come back. I come back to this point: I suspect that you would find universal agreement across this place on the idea that, with qualification, people should be able to move across borders. But you do that by either lifting everyone up to the best standard or by encouraging a race to the bottom. This bill is encouraging a race to the bottom. It's got big problems. It has been rushed here and it should not be rushed through this place. If the government insists on putting it through in its current form—it can't be supported as it is.

The Greens will be supporting the amendments that will be moved, but we need to go further because we have an opportunity here to deliver something really good for the community, something that will maintain standards, maintain public safety and also allow people to move across states with their qualifications, but this bill ain't it. The government seems to have an allergy to talking to workers, talking to representatives of workers and talking to regulators who might actually know more about this than the government itself does. If we withdraw this bill, go back to the drawing board, come back with something that isn't about a race to the bottom but is rather about lifting standards to the top, then I suspect it will be supported and it will probably sail through this place. But, as it is, we can't support something that potentially poses a threat to peoples' welfare and peoples' safety and also threatens to undermine standards in this country.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:35): I rise in support of the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021. Before I came into this place, I was a builder for 10 years, a qualified carpenter and joiner. I then went back and did a law degree and ended up practising in construction law. I have been intricately involved in the building industry for the last 32 years, either as a hands-on builder or as a building lawyer. I have reviewed a number of pieces of legislation on behalf of the Queensland government and written a number of reports for the Queensland government. As much as I often in this place pay the Queensland government out at every opportunity, I will not pay them out in relation to their licensing scheme in the building industry.

We all know that the way that we administer occupational licensing, whether it be for carpenters and joiners or for just about any other trade or business or profession, is very different between the states and territories. We are still a collection of six colonies when it comes to occupational licensing and that's to our regret. When it comes to the building industry, Queensland has, in my considered view, the best licensing scheme for those in the building industry, bar none. We know that there are other states that certainly take a lesser approach.

I've heard members opposite, and indeed the member for Melbourne, talk earlier about a race to the bottom. If this was a race to the bottom, I would be opposing the bill. I have fought all my professional life for better standards in the building industry. It's very important that we, I believe, have the best standards for occupational trades in this country. We've seen what can go wrong in the last few years with some of our building failures in New South Wales and in the ACT. What we don't want to see are those sorts of building failures and shoddy building practices being replicated in other states, and this bill would not permit that. I'll come back to that in a moment.

Let's just talk briefly about the merits of this bill in the first instance. I've heard speakers before me talk about the merits of deregulation. A New South Welsh person doesn't need a Victorian driver's licence when they drive into Victoria, and most Australians would understand that is a good thing. We live in a federation. We want to try, as best as we humanly possibly can, to provide all avenues for businesses to be able to engage in work around the entire country. I don't think that anybody would quibble with that.

That's particularly so when we, as a country, are clawing—some would say rapidly, in fact—our way out of this pandemic, from an economic perspective. We need to provide as many opportunities as we can for businesses to compete on a national and, indeed, a global scale. But we'll start with the national scale. We need to encourage Victorian builders—in fact, we'll need Victorian builders operating in New South Wales. One of the beautiful aspects of this bill, particularly in times of recovery from natural disasters, is that we can surge workforces. When there's a natural disaster in New South Wales, as we've seen, and in my home state and my own home area of South-East Queensland, the reality is that we don't have enough trades to surge workforces without calling upon other states. We've all seen the way that works, say, with the CFA or the SES; we always call upon other states. The same thing happens in the building industry: when we have a major flood, fire or a cyclone we call upon practitioners—occupational licensees—from other states to come and help us out. So the concept is not foreign and it's a sensible one. The concept will open up opportunities for occupational licensees around the country. These are sensible provisions.

I want to return to the concerns that have been raised by those opposite in wanting to refer this matter to a Senate inquiry. They say that's because there are concerns that some states don't have the same requirements of those practitioners and that having this automatic mutual recognition scheme would somehow lead to a race to the bottom. That argument would have some merit but for the fact that section 42S provides a minister—no, let's talk examples, because it's probably easier that way.

Let's take commercial builders operating in New South Wales. I think it's pretty well accepted that commercial builders in New South Wales do not need the same sort of rigour or to meet the same standards as commercial builders in Queensland, reiterating my views earlier that Queensland has the highest licensing standards of all the states. If Mick de Brenni, who is the Queensland minister responsible at this point in time, believed that the licensing requirements for New South Wales commercial builders were unsatisfactory in allowing them to operate as commercial builders in Queensland he could exempt those builders from operating in Queensland. Section 42S of this bill enables him to do that and I accept that he may well do that in certain instances—I just use that as an example for the sake of argument. Mick de Brenni, the Queensland minister responsible for the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, could exempt New South Wales commercial builders from taking a commercial building licence or acting as commercial builders in Queensland if he were of the view that allowing those practitioners to operate in Queensland would be injurious to consumer protection, or the environment, or animal welfare or the health or safety of workers or the public.

That same principle applies across all of the occupational trades, whether it be electricians, plumbers or carpenters. If a state minister was of the view that a particular trade in another state or territory did not meet the same standards then the minister could exclude that trade from operating in Queensland, for example. That's really important because, as the member for Melbourne spoke about earlier, not only does that eliminate the race to the bottom but it does the opposite—it encourages those states that do have lax licensing standards of their occupational trades to lift their game. I can assure you that, if occupational trades in a particular state or territory are made exempt by Queensland, for example, those occupational trades will be onto their own state government to lift the licensing requirements and to lift the standards so that they can compete on the national stage.

This will have the absolute opposite effect to what those members opposite are arguing. It will not be a race to the bottom; it will lift the standards of all occupational trades. That would be a very good thing in my world, in the building industry, in particular but also across all occupational trades. No-one would quibble with lifting the bar rather than lowering the bar. Whether it's the building industry, the teaching profession or whatever it might be, we should all be aspiring to look at nation's best practice. I have been a practitioner in the building industry for the last 32-odd years and I can guarantee you that Queensland has the best licensing standards. I know it's not perfect. No system designed, facilitated or administered by a human being is perfect, but it's the best there is in the country. All the other states and territories will be encouraged by this bill to lift their standards to ensure that residents in their state can compete on the national stage.

I haven't heard all of the debate in this place, but I imagine that, if someone hasn't done it already, someone will raise the argument: what's to stop a resident of Queensland who can't meet the tough licensing standards from applying for their builders licence, their electricians licence or their carpenters licence in another state or territory that has lax standards and saying in their home state, 'I've got my licence from another state. I now want to operate as a builder in this state'? Again, section 42A of this bill prevents people from doing that. Under section 42A of the bill you cannot have your principal place of residence or operate a business in, say, the state of Queensland and get your licence in Victoria, New South Wales, Tassie or the ACT. If you're a resident of Queensland—in that you have your principal place of residence in Queensland—or you operate your business in Queensland, that's where you have to get your licence.

These are really sensible reforms. I totally get that those members opposite have some concerns. We don't want to lower the bar. I want to assure you that this is not lowering the bar. This bill has been considered. These concerns around lifting things up rather than lowering them down are contained in the bill. No-one wants to see repeats of the shoddy building work that we've seen in apartments in New South Wales. We don't want to see that replicated across Australia. No-one would.

This bill would protect, under section 42A and 42S from that sort of conduct. It's a sensible bill. It would enable contractors and occupational trades to operate without having to get individual licences in every state. That's a good thing. That's a sensible thing. I'm still a registered builder in Queensland and it costs me $600 or $700 a year. I don't want to have to pay that in every state and territory in this country. This bill will prevent that from happening. It's sensible. I recommend it to the House.

Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (10:52): I rise to speak on the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021. The bill seeks to introduce a uniform scheme of automatic mutual recognition. Automatic mutual recognition will allow workers to move across states or territories and bring with them their accreditation to work in their trade or profession. This legislation is backed by an intergovernmental agreement for automatic mutual recognition with all states and territories consenting to the bill. But, as we have heard, there are major concerns with this bill as it stands. Labor's position here is clear. We support the principle of allowing workers to move around the country in pursuit of work and have their qualifications recognised via a mutual recognition scheme. However, the Labor Party will initiate two mechanisms to make this legislation better.

We intend to refer this bill to a Senate inquiry. Stakeholders have noted some concerns with the legislation, including issues with differing compliance and regulatory responsibilities in each jurisdiction and the possibility that this legislation may well remove the incentive for jurisdictions to introduce uniform work place standards. As we've heard here this morning, the last thing we want is a race to the bottom when it comes to standards. A Senate inquiry will allow for these concerns to be discussed and add changes that can make the bill better.

The shadow minister will move a substantive amendment, which seeks to exclude electrical and construction workers from this bill. This is a sensible amendment that can be done right now. The bill doesn't remove differences in standards between the electrical and construction industries in different states. It just ignores those differences as if they're not there and treats all states the same, but, despite that, the differences still exist. Mutual recognition has existed since the early nineties. There is already mutual recognition for many occupations and moving to automatic mutual recognition for many occupations does make sense. Many different industries have worked hard to standardise the laws for their particular occupations since mutual recognition laws commenced. Getting as many occupations in Australia as possible to that same position is good policy and is something we need to see states and territories working towards. Regrettably, that national standard has not been achieved for some occupations. The electrical occupations are one of those. If you want to standardise occupational outcomes in the country, the first thing that needs to happen is that state and territory rules have to be standardised across those occupations. That is the first step. You have to lift all state and territories to the highest possible standard, one that's recognised and endorsed by the industry. When I say 'industry', I mean all representations of the industry—that is, employers, unions and their members, government and even the training institutions who train people to meet those standards. Instead, what we see here is an attempt by the government to bypass all that hard work and bypass what is going to make standardisation across the country possible to then take that last step of automatic mutual recognition. The government calls all of that hard work, all of this trouble, red tape. They pooh-pooh it. I call it blue ribbon. This is blue ribbon that wraps around working people to make sure they come home safe at the end of each day and to make sure the consumers are also wrapped around and kept safe.

For those industries that have already achieved this level of standardisation, making mutual recognition automatic makes perfect sense. My profession, the nursing profession, has gone through this process. It took years. The industry, as I described before, worked together. We set standards right across the board. In fact, the trade union, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, of which I was national secretary and of which I am still a very proud member, played a very leading role in that process. It took years and years to actually write the standards that levelled across the whole country the requirements for someone to practice as a nurse. Once we did that hard work—and I'm proud to say the ANMF actually owned the copyright on those standards and the bill of ethics and the code of conduct for a long time—that was then handed over to the national body. All that work was given to the national body and all those individual nurses boards became one under Ahpra.

That is the proper way to do this. For those industries that have already achieved that level, automatic mutual recognition absolutely makes sense. But you have to do that work first. For a small number of occupations, this work hasn't been done. This bill means there could be very dangerous outcomes for consumers. There could be unacceptable safety risks for workers and it could put members of the public in danger. Those occupations that have achieved this standardisation, as I said, followed a very clear path. The automatic mutual recognition proposal, as it is here, does the opposite for some occupations to what I just described. It ignores all the very significant differences that currently exist between states and territories—differences in qualifications and training, differences in licences, differences in laws that they practice under, differences in standards that need to be achieved to get a qualification and differences in industry application. These are important things. They're not just things that you can ignore and hope go away because you've introduced a bill that says, 'Hey, there's mutual recognition across the country now; let's forget about all those differences.'

This bill says: 'Regardless of what you need to know, just go and do what you want in each place and we're not going to do the work behind it that is going to make it safe for you to do your job. By the way, if you do step in there not knowing what the rules are, not knowing what the regulations are and not knowing what the requirements are, and something goes wrong, it's all your fault.' It is all very well for the previous member to say, 'But the minister can stop you working there if they think it is not going to be right,' but this bill doesn't allow, in any way, for people working in different states to even know that.

The fact is electrical occupations already have a mutual recognition system in place, and it's working. It's a system that maximises portability of skills but balances that portability against the risks that come from not having standards set across states and territories. The government's proposal removes the existing system of balancing those risks for electrical occupations and replaces it with a scheme that ignores them. It's interesting to watch this process unfold here with the government's bill, because there really is no recognition from the government that unions have an important role to play in all these issues.

The ETU, the Electrical Trades Union, is playing an exceptionally sensible role here. I thank them for their hard work in highlighting the problems with this bill. They want to unite the trades across the country. They want to develop the best universal standards that they can to protect their workers and consumers and develop the best outcomes for all. They are at the coalface. Their members are the ones working on these sites. Their members have an intricate knowledge of the issues at hand.

Labor seeks to be cooperative on any measure that makes it easier for Australians to secure good jobs, including giving workers the opportunity to move around the country and maintain the ability to work in their chosen trade or profession; however, we must ensure that any new legislation has no unintended consequences that would negatively impact workers or standards, and we are concerned that this bill will do just that. The amendments are sensible, and I ask the House to support them.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (11:00): I rise to speak briefly on the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021 as the proud representative of the thriving cross-border community of Albury-Wodonga and the surrounding areas. When I ask my constituents about this bill, they say the same thing: this is common sense. Border residents will tell you common sense is not too common when it comes to the New South Wales and Victorian border. We're still reeling from the COVID border closure where the New South Wales border slammed shut in July last year, cutting our families in two, cutting our economy in two, and the economic aftershocks continue to eat away at us. I was told only yesterday by the mayor of Wodonga, Kevin Poulton, that Victor's Restaurant & Events, a mainstay on the Lincoln Causeway is shutting up shop for good. His business was decimated by blow after blow inflicted by city politicians playing to a city audience. They still see the country as a backwater at the margins, and our community was caught in the crossfire. And the emotional toll is still there. My constituents remain fragile, struggling and uncertain about whether a border can slam shut again. That's why I'm enthusiastic about welcoming this bill.

Albury-Wodonga is one of the main places that will benefit. This reform introduces an automatic mutual recognition scheme that makes it cheaper, easier and faster for people who work in registered occupations to work in multiple states. This applies to tradies of all stripes—electricians, plumbers, builders, architects, real estate agents and many more. In Albury-Wodonga alone, technicians and trade workers are the second largest professional class, making up 15.6 per cent of the population. You'd be hard pressed to find a tradie in Wodonga who doesn't do jobs across the border and vice versa. It's a fact of life. It's how our businesses operate. But these workers need to apply for two registrations to do this work—one in Victoria, one in New South Wales—and this can cost in the hundreds or thousands of dollars, and it's a real red tape nightmare that we simply don't need in a border community.

It must be said at this point though that I haven't heard tradies screaming out for this change. In honesty, that's because they're used to it and they just get on with it; they put up with. It's what you have to do in business if you live on the border. It's what you have to do to survive. Registering in two states is one of the dozens of inconveniences that living under two sets of rules creates for every person every single day in a border community. But city tradies don't have to pay twice the number of application registrations or renewal fees like my constituents. And all they're asking for, all I'm asking for is fairness, and this is what this scheme will deliver.

A huge number of people in my area cross the border every single day for work. They live in one state and work in another. In 2016, over 20 per cent of people who worked in Albury lived in Wodonga. In the Indigo Shire, 14 per cent of people in towns like Beechworth, Yackandandah, Rutherglen and Chiltern cross the border for work. Our labour market is very mobile and they move to follow the work. In these times, when the economy is jumping around, with the end of JobKeeper only days away, we need to slash every bit of red tape that might prevent them from taking up new opportunities or sinking their confidence.

For tradies moving to the border from Melbourne, this change can't come quick enough. We're seeing a huge influx of people from the city seeking a better life in our region, and they want to hit the ground running, but, for most, it will be the first time they've worked in a second state. Stephen Donaghey, the regional manager of the Master Builders Association of Victoria, flagged this with me as an issue. He told my office that it can take up to 12 weeks to apply for and then receive a New South Wales registration, which means that, if you've got a job tomorrow, you can't go to work. Imagine how much work they could miss out on. It's not a good start to life in the country. By making the ability to work automatic, they don't need to complete a form a dozen pages long, they don't need to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in registration fees and they don't need to wait for months for the tick of approval. They can just get on with it.

This change also promises to make it easier for a surge capacity to rebuild communities after natural disasters. The bushfires of 2019 destroyed many thousands of hectares of prime countryside and devastated houses and buildings. Many people wanted to help out to rebuild, and we had hundreds of volunteers on the ground building fences, bulldozing and rebuilding houses from the ground up. The last thing you want to do is greet this goodwill with a 10-page stack of paperwork.

This bill has the backing of peak groups in my community, who I speak to regularly about issues affecting our small business sector. Neil Aird of Business Wodonga, which represents the interests of thousands of businesses, is very confident that this move will be widely supported by the members. And Steve Donaghey and Ross Mitchell of Master Builders have thrown their support behind the reform, with some words of caution. I'm grateful to them for their time to discuss this reform and for their explanations about how it will play out in practice. However, they did have some concerns about the bill and how it will be implemented, which I've raised with the assistant minister, and I'd like to thank him and his office for their time in clarifying its operation.

In regard to obtaining state based warranty insurance, I've been reassured that insurance providers will not require either Victorian or New South Wales registration in order to obtain cover in each state. Having the single registration will be enough, and it will be recognised as such. I'm also pleased that there are measures in place to prevent licence shopping, which has been raised as a concern for both consumer safety and the integrity of the professions. Noting that Victoria and New South Wales have different continuing professional development obligations, I call on the government to really consider making these requirements more uniform, too. Significant information will need to be provided to people who are working in occupations about what work they can and can't perform in the second state. For instance, in Victoria the domestic builder registration allows builders to carry out work in classes 1a, 1b, 2, 4 and 10; in New South Wales, 1b is not termed 'domestic'. We need clear guidelines for each state about what people in each state can do.

Thinking through this bill has brought back painful memories of the permit system that was in place for six months or more on the very same border that this reform seeks to address. The New South Wales premier shut the border with very little notice and promised that there would be a permit system. When we woke up to a closed border, the permit system was a complete shambles. We saw police checkpoints and constant queues that made people hours late for work, if they were able to get to work at all. Businesses were shuttered, never to return. People's lives were completely torn up. Before then, the border was simply a bridge you drove over to do your shopping, go to school, run your business or get to hospital. Now it's a barrier that could close at any time without notice.

As the government slowly added postcodes to the list of border communities over the months following that closure, it was extremely clear that they had no idea how border communities work. And what we see across governments is a profound lack of understanding of how people like us live on the border and how interconnected our communities are. There is no shortage of cross-border problems that we face every day. They cause everything from headaches to heartbreak—road rules and anomalies that learner and probationary drivers deal with when crossing the border, different certificates for the responsible service of alcohol in every state, healthcare provision that stops at the border, the availability of the services under the NDIS, and bushfire apps. I could go on and on.

The New South Wales and Victorian cross-border commissioners were created to work through these issues, and during the border closure they did a mighty fine job at it. I want to pay tribute to their work. But there's still so much work to be done when it comes to border anomalies. I welcome the assistant minister's invitation for ongoing discussions about how we can further reduce these barriers to bring our cross-border community back together again, stronger than ever, after this traumatic year of separation.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:08): I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021 introduces a uniform scheme for the automated mutual recognition, or AMR, of occupational registrations. AMR allows builders, plumbers, architects and other registered professionals to do the same work in other states that they are licensed to do at home, without applying for additional licences or paying further fees. Safeguards are embedded in the bill to maintain high standards of consumer and environmental protection and animal welfare. The health and safety of workers and of the public will also be protected. Workers will face oversight by local regulators, and anyone who is subject to disciplinary action will be excluded from the scheme.

AMR is an important national reform that will increase the resilience of the Australian economy, contributing to economic and jobs growth. The scheme reduces the burden of regulation on businesses and workers. AMR will particularly benefit workers in cross-border regions and help communities to respond and rebuild following natural disasters. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:10): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 87, page 17 (line 30), omit "This Part", substitute "Subject to subsection (4), this Part".

(2) Schedule 1, item 87, page 18 (after line 5), at the end of section 42C, add:

Exclusions

(4) This Part does not apply to:

(a) a building, maintenance or construction industry activity; or

(b) an electrical occupation activity.

Note: A consequence of this Part not applying is that there is no automatic deemed registration under section 42D.

(5) In this section:

building, maintenance or construction industry activity means building, maintenance or construction work authorised to be carried on under an occupation that requires registration under State building, maintenance or construction licencing legislation.

electrical occupation activity means electrical work authorised to be carried on under an occupation that requires registration or licensing under State legislation.

As I articulated in my substantive speech in relation to the bill proper, Labor is moving amendments to seek the exclusion of those licensed occupations which operate in the building industry from the application of this bill, given the varying forms of regulation that exist in relation to those licenses. It's important that as we move forward with this bill that, as laudable as the principle is, there aren't unintended consequences in relation to the health and safety of those working in these industries, along with the outcome of their work and the benefit to consumers. To that end, Labor seeks to move the amendments that I have just done.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:20): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (11:21): by leave—I wish to correct the record in relation to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, introduced in the House this morning. When introducing the bill there was an error in the second reading speech which referred to measures in relation to regional captioning which are not included in the bill. I would like to clarify that the bill introduced does not remove requirements on regional and remote broadcasters to provide captions beyond those provided by metropolitan broadcasters.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:22): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is about ensuring the integrity of Australia's biosecurity framework, to protect our $61 billion agriculture industry and valuable and unique environmental assets from the incursion of pests and diseases.

A strong biosecurity system is critical to Australia's prosperity. Biosecurity laws protect agriculture, tourism and other industries, plant and animal health, the environment, and our market access. They are necessary to allow us to trade and for our nation to continue to thrive.

This bill clarifies the validity of determinations made under section 174 of the Biosecurity Act. These determinations specify that certain classes of goods are conditionally non-prohibited goods which must not be brought or imported into Australian territory unless they are covered by an import permit or unless alternative conditions specified in the determination are complied with.

The bill confirms that goods specified in such determinations are conditionally non-prohibited goods, and confirms the validity of any conditions imposed by the determination. It does not create or change classes of goods listed in the determinations, or the conditions that are imposed on such goods.

Conditionally non-prohibited goods pose a significant level of biosecurity risk if the specified conditions are not complied with. This can have serious consequences for Australia's biosecurity status, market access, plant, animal and human health, the economy and the environment.

In an increasingly complex trade and regulatory environment, it is important that goods which present an unacceptable level of risk of pests or diseases are subject to appropriate conditions before they are brought into Australia. These conditions include requirements for treatments or packaging, for example, a requirement to treat wood articles imported from specified countries with methyl bromide to prevent the goods arriving in Australia with the hitchhiker pest brown marmorated stink bug present.

Determinations made under section 174 of the act therefore play a central role in enabling the Australian government to manage biosecurity risks, and to prevent goods which present an unacceptable level of biosecurity risks from being brought into Australian territory. The passage of this bill will ensure clarity for our stakeholders, thereby benefiting Australian farmers, the agriculture industry, the environment, the economy and all Australians.

Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (11:25): I want to be clear that Labor does not intend to hold this bill up. Of course we understand the biosecurity risks that could impact on our vital agricultural industry in Australia.

As outlined in the explanatory memorandum and by the minister just then, the purpose of the Biosecurity Amendment (Clarifying Conditionally Non-prohibited Goods) Bill 2021 is to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015. The amendments clarify the validity of determinations made under subsection 174(1) of the act in relation to specifying that certain classes of goods are conditionally non-prohibited goods. According to the explanatory memorandum, conditionally non-prohibited goods are goods specified in a determination in force under subsection 174A of the act. That provides that the Director of Biosecurity and the Director of Human Biosecurity may jointly determine that the specified classes of goods must not be brought or imported into Australian territory unless specified conditions are complied with. The explanatory memorandum also outlines the conditionality that non-prohibited goods pose an unacceptable level of biosecurity risk if specified conditions are not complied with. Determinations made under 174(1) of the act therefore play a central role in enabling the government to manage biosecurity risks and to prevent goods which present an unacceptable level of biosecurity risk from being brought or imported into Australian territory.

I also note that the explanatory memorandum states the bill would not have any financial impact on the Australian government's budget, but I do want to take the opportunity to raise a number of concerns in relation to the Morrison government's current management of Australia's biosecurity system. We're here today doing this amendment because the government has asked us to, to fix up the original drafting errors. My understanding is that the government currently has a whole heap of situations whereby they're relying on this determination, which they've now found might not be valid. So we're here today to fix this up for the government because they didn't draft it properly in the first place. That's what's going on here.

We know that Australia's biosecurity system underpins more than $60 billion in agricultural production and $45 billion in agriculture exports, as well as $38 billion in relation to the country's inbound tourism industry. Biosecurity is always an issue raised whenever I talk to Australia's farmers, producers and growers right around the country. They, like us, know that there's a lot at risk if the government isn't adequately managing our biosecurity system. But this government hasn't had a good track record when it comes to biosecurity arrangements.

We've already seen the Morrison government axe its biosecurity levy, a levy that its own report—the Craik review in 2017—recommended. The report included 42 recommendations and found that our biosecurity system was underfunded, therefore recommending the introduction of a new Biosecurity Imports Levy. The review into Australia's biosecurity system found it was also at risk of failing without additional resources. Interestingly, the government budgeted for this levy to be introduced back in the 2018-19 budget but missed a number of deadlines to introduce it and has axed it totally, never to be seen again. But, of course, it did say that it was going to spend the $300-odd million that this biosecurity levy was going to raise. We tried to find out about what's actually going on with those programs. At the time the levy was axed, the National Farmers Federation criticised the government and said that axing the levy was a blow to Australian farmers, and that it was a poor look for the government.

There was also the Inspector-General of Biosecurity's review report for 2021. This report revealed that biosecurity is not in a strong position to address the diverse and evolving biosecurity risks and business environment expected to prevail in 2021 through to 2025. With so much at risk for Australia's agriculture sector, this is certainly a wake-up call for the Morrison government. It must do better when it comes to our biosecurity arrangements. There must be confidence in Australia's biosecurity system given that it protects the agricultural industry from pests and disease. Of course, we saw the human biosecurity system fail when the Ruby Princess docked in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government must do better when it comes to the biosecurity systems for agriculture and for humans in this country.

We also know there are other factors and issues impacting on the agricultural sector across Australia, ones that the government has done little or nothing to fix. It knows they are impacting today on Australian farmers. For example, the government has known there is a structural reliance on migrant workers to pick produce on Australian farms for a very long time. The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted this structural reliance given the travel and quarantine arrangements over the last year. Labor has written to the minister twice, first in January and then in February this year, to raise our concerns around the agricultural workforce strategy. The minister promised to fix it during the COVID-19 pandemic. The minister claimed he had 25,000 pre-vetted work-ready islanders ready to come to Australia. But last week, he confessed only 2,600 have entered Australia to pick the produce. The minister promised these workers were ready to go but clearly they are not and they haven't been delivered. It is one of those classic Morrison government marketing moments—all announcement, no delivery. There are not 25,000 pre-vetted workers available on Australian farms. We know this because our produce is still rotting on Australian farms because there are not enough workers to pick it.

What is clear is that minister's turned his back on the Seasonal Worker Program and on the quarantine arrangements, which are the responsibility of the government. We know the COVID pandemic has contributed to a shortage of 26,000 workers across Australian farms. The Morrison government has been long aware of these structural issues with the agricultural workforce. The government has a report on its desk asking it to fix this. John Azarias, through the agricultural labour advisory committee, delivered the national agricultural workforce strategy to the minister back in October last year. Almost five months later, the government finally released the report together with another road map. It had 37 recommendations in it, but the government is saying in the media release that it will respond to the strategy in the coming months. It had already had the report for five months sitting on its desk before it released it. It was to address the immediate needs of our farmers but clearly the government are not responding to immediate needs. The report sat on a desk for five months, and now they are saying they are going to do months of consultation. This is simply not good enough.

The National Lost Crop Register indicates that $45 million of fruit and vegetables has been dumped in Australia to date. That figure would be much higher if everybody was reporting their losses. It is an absolute national shame for farmers, after what happened with the bushfires and the drought in previous years. Now they have had some good weather. Unfortunately, they have had too much rain in the last few days but, prior to that, they had a bumper crop and they can't actually get that produce out to Australians and receive its value. It's just demoralising for Australia's primary producers.

In conclusion, I want to say that Australian farmers and producers need to have confidence that the Morrison government can and will manage our biosecurity system so we can protect and mitigate any risks to our agricultural industry from pests and disease. It is clear from the experts that the Morrison government has more work to do to make sure our biosecurity system is well resourced and that it does not fail. Labor will be keeping a close eye on how the government continues to manage our vital biosecurity system. Labor will be moving a second reading amendment to reflect our ongoing concern about the inaction of the Morrison government. I therefore move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Coalition Government’s ongoing mismanagement of Australia’s biosecurity arrangements".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the amendment is seconded?

Ms Kearney: I will second the amendment but I reserve my right to reply.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:34): The Biosecurity Amendment (Clarifying Conditionally Non-prohibited Goods) Bill 2021 will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to clarify the validity of determinations that were made under section 174 of the act in relation to conditionally non-prohibited goods. The bill will confirm that goods specified in such determinations are conditionally non-prohibited goods and confirms the validity of any conditions imposed by the determination. The bill does not create or change classes of goods listed in the determinations or the conditions that are imposed on such goods.

Conditionally non-prohibited goods pose an unacceptable level of biosecurity if the specified conditions are not complied with. This means determinations made under section 174 of the act play a central role in enabling the Australian government to manage biosecurity risks and preventing goods which present an unacceptable level of biosecurity risk from entering Australian territory. Passage of the bill will ensure that there is clarity for stakeholders about determinations made under the act in relation to conditionally non-prohibited goods. It will ensure that Australia's biosecurity system remains effective in preventing pests and diseases from being brought into Australian territory, thereby benefiting Australian farmers, the agriculture industry, the environment, the economy and all Australians.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the chair is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:36): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (11:37): I rise to speak on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021. When the Our north, our future: white paper on developing northern Australia was released back in 2015, it made big promises to turbocharge growth and to create jobs right across the region. The white paper's biggest announcement—its crowning jewel, if you like—was supposed to be the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which is now widely referred to as the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. The NAIF was intended to offer another avenue for projects which are a bit out of the norm and may not have qualified for traditional bank loans but offer great opportunities for innovation and job creation across northern Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Northern Australia may be geographically remote, but it is home to a number of world-class, world-leading businesses and industries. There are organisations from Mackay to Darwin to Port Hedland that are achieving things that no-one else has even dreamed of doing in mining, in agriculture and in sustainability. With the right support, we can see more emerge, and this will help Australia in its post-COVID, post-recession recovery. Unfortunately, what we've seen over the past five years, since it was established, is that the NAIF has been a huge disappointment for the communities in northern Australia and has comprehensively failed to deliver what was promised back in 2015.

The government are always happy to talk about how much they have approved or how much they're going to spend eventually from the NAIF, but they go really silent when you ask them how much has actually gone out the door and into communities. There's probably a good reason they don't like to talk about that. As of 30 October 2020, NAIF had only realised $218.4 million of its $5 billion budget. That means that only 5c in every dollar promised has been released over the five-year period supposed to be the NAIF's entire life span. When the coalition government established the NAIF, it believed it could invest $5 billion in five years. Northern Australia is overflowing with potential projects, so it seemed like it should be an easy job. So how is it the government managed to make such a dog's breakfast of it, with only five per cent of funding out the door by the time its deadline rolled around? How? If it were a private business, serious questions would have to be asked about the NAIF's ability to hit its KPIs. So far, we have seen fewer than 10 projects actually begin or complete construction.

So the government gave the NAIF an extension, another five years to roll out the other 95 per cent of its funding. It's clear there is a big job for this 'announce lots, deliver nothing' government. The NAIF has also been subject to four reviews in as many years, with the Senate Select Committee on the effectiveness of the Australian Government's Northern Australia agenda also making it the subject of its interim report. It is no wonder that people in northern Australia see it as a white elephant, with review after review, announcement after announcement and recommendations made and gone unheard and northern Australia still seeing very little development. All of this inaction has meant people are still waiting to get any real results.

Labor have been calling for major changes to the NAIF for the past three years. Finally, at the end of last year, we saw the Morrison government admit its failures and commit to a much-needed overhaul of the program. Labor welcome the Morrison government finally making changes to the NAIF—changes we hope, when implemented, will be a step in the right direction. People in northern Australia don't want another announcement from the Prime Minister and Minister Pitt; they actually want delivery. They want money out the door from this program.

This bill proposes to extend the time period in which NAIF can make decisions to grant financial assistance for another five years beyond its current expiry of 30 June 2021 to 30 June 2026. The NAIF's statutory review showed stakeholder support for the extension of the NAIF based on the view that it fills an ongoing market gap in accessing finance in northern Australia. Labor supports the proposed extension. Northern Australia is bursting with opportunity, with many project proponents just needing that hand up to get started. Hopefully, the government will make better use of the next five years than they did the previous five.

The bill also proposes to expand the activities eligible for financial assistance beyond the construction of northern Australia economic infrastructure to the development of northern Australia economic infrastructure. This change is consistent with the recommendations of the Senate inquiry that the NAIF should support more smaller projects. It means the NAIF could potentially support the purchase of equipment, leasing, training and the expansion of existing business operations. The Senate inquiry into the effectiveness of the Australian government's northern Australia agenda repeatedly heard from stakeholders across the north that the NAIF was not accessible to smaller projects and that it is, a lot of the time, smaller projects that have the largest impact on communities and jobs in the north. It's always exciting to hear about $100 million projects being approved in our regions, but often it is those smaller projects that can make a big difference in communities because they can be completed more quickly and they deliver ongoing jobs faster. It's hoped allowing more of these smaller projects to prosper through the scheme will help deliver the results desperately needed to get the NAIF back on the right path.

The bill also provides for the NAIF to lend directly to project proponents rather than going through state and territory governments, as it must now. Feedback from across the north has raised serious concerns about the length of time it currently takes to get money out of the NAIF by duplicating administrative processes at the state or territory level. We acknowledge the concerns raised by environment groups that the changes would remove the ability of state or territory governments to block projects that have environmental impacts, in particular gas projects. However, the Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia governments, as well as business groups across the north, have all indicated that they are comfortable with this change. In addition, the bill does not alter existing federal, state or territory environmental and other regulatory processes relevant to projects that are funded by the NAIF. Labor supports speeding up the release of funding for the NAIF. However, we would like to see the NAIF support more renewable energy projects and projects which assist in achieving net zero by 2050 targets, as is Labor's own policy.

The bill also broadens the types of financial assistance which the NAIF will be able to provide to projects. Currently, the NAIF only provides loans. The bill proposes that, in addition to loans, the NAIF be permitted to offer letters of credit, purchase of bonds, guarantees and equity investments. This reflects the investment options of other government financing bodies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Labor has been calling for this change for a while now, with the Senate inquiry and the statutory review recommending that other types of finance would be of assistance to potential projects in northern Australia—especially smaller projects and those proposed by First Nations communities, which historically have had an extremely difficult time receiving support by the NAIF.

As of 30 October 2020, only two First Nations projects have reached investment decision stage with the NAIF. These two decisions total $40 million, representing only one per cent of the NAIF's total funding. That's just not acceptable. Labor has been calling on the government, and the NAIF, to work on having greater engagement with First Nations communities on the development of northern Australia. We acknowledge that this bill goes some way towards addressing this by including experience in economic development for Indigenous communities in the list of fields of expertise sought for the NAIF board. Labor had hoped the bill may go further in addressing the challenges First Nations projects seeking NAIF support have faced in accessing NAIF financing. However, we hope that, altogether, these changes will mean that smaller projects and First Nations projects, which are so vital to development in northern Australia, will have more opportunities to successfully progress through the NAIF.

The last 18 months have been particularly challenging for northern Australia. It has seen drought, fire, floods, trade embargoes and COVID-19. It has battled a lot of this without real meaningful help from this government, who time and time again seem to believe that this country stops at Kirribilli when it comes to planning those big projects. Areas like Far North Queensland, relying on JobKeeper and JobSeeker, have been hit badly by the government's recent cuts and in four short days will bear the brunt of the JobKeeper program ending altogether. For many people in the north this means less money for essentials, less money spent in local shops, meaning the north's recession will bite deeper and longer than it should.

That is why it is more important than ever that we see the Prime Minister, Minister Pitt and the NAIF start truly supporting northern Australia. Now is the time to be supporting big and small projects alike to get off the ground, employing people from local communities and stimulating those local economies. It's easy to lose count of how many reviews and rehashes of programs the government has announced for northern Australia in the last few years. Time after time this government talks about the north's potential but what they don't seem to understand is that people in the north are looking for action to actually realise that potential. A strong northern Australia is good for the whole economy and the whole country. If we want the north to lead the country out of recession, it's going to take more than unfulfilled promises. Northern Australians are fighters and they deserve a federal government who will join them, support them and invest in what the north has to offer.

As a result of this bill, the government will now get a second chance with the NAIF and another five years to spend the funds that it promised the north. Labor wants the NAIF to work. We want to see northern Australia reach its full potential. Let's hope this bill won't end up as just another example of this government overpromising and underdelivering. Northern Australia needs long-term vision but it also needs projects and jobs now. If our economy is to recover from COVID-19, the last thing they want to see is a repeat of the last five years. Communities in the north can't spend another five years waiting on funding to trickle down from the NAIF. Money must start getting out the door faster so it can start turbo-charging northern Australia's recession recovery.

As I've already said, northern Australia is bursting with opportunity. It's now up to the minister and his colleagues to deliver what they promised. Northern Australia has already been waiting too long for the Morrison government to catch up. It's time for action. It's time for jobs. It's time to see that the $5 billion that was promised to northern Australia way back in 2015 actually gets out the door, gets out of Canberra and makes a real, substantial and sustained difference for the north of this country. With that, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes the Government's failure to:

(a) deliver what it promised as part of its Northern Australia Agenda; and

(b) get money out the door of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility;

(2) further notes the bill includes amendments that the Opposition has been calling for, for a number of years; and

(3) calls on the Prime Minister and the Government to:

(a) learn from their failures with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility over the past five years;

(b) deliver the funding they have promised for development in Northern Australia by speeding up the release of funds from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility; and

(c) realise the potential in Northern Australia and re-commit to delivering on their Northern Australia Agenda."

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Kearney: I second the amendment and reserve my right of reply.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member.

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:50): After that partisan contribution, I am not sure why but I will extend the courtesy to the other side of letting them know that I am only going to be speaking for five minutes. I think the member for Blair is here to speak next. I am doing that courtesy to ensure that he's ready for that.

In many ways northern Australia can be looked upon as our nation's frontier land, the vast and beautiful Top End which makes up 40 per cent of our country's land mass and yet it is home to just five per cent of the population. In terms of representation in this House, of 151 members of parliament just eight can raise their voices in this place to celebrate the worth of the north and champion its causes. In the other place there are just five senators who are actually based in northern Australia. I am very proud to say three of those five are Nationals: Senator Canavan, Senator McDonald and Senator McMahon. That's a total of 14 MPs and senators out of a total of 229 representatives and senators in this place who can actually stick their hand up for close to a third of our nation's potential. Yes, we are few in number but we have loud voices. It was only when the Liberal-National coalition came to government in 2013 that serious work began on further investigating the potential of the north and to find ways to invest in that potential.

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was a recommendation of the white paper for developing northern Australia. It set out a plan to unlock the vast economic potential of the region, as we have barely scratched the surface in untapping the wealth in terms of mineral resources, in terms of food production, in terms of water storage and in terms of tourism development. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility provides financing by means of low-interest loans. Since its commencement in July 2016 the NAIF, despite all that's been said in this place, has actually made a big impact—$2.8 billion in investment commitments, forecast to support 8,000 jobs and generate around $6.6 billion in economic impact for northern Australia.

While much has been achieved, despite the naysayers, there is more to do. I acknowledge that. I have advocated for a long, long time, probably since the inception of the NAIF, for the changes that are being announced today to be made. I and many project proponents have felt frustrated by lending requirements from the NAIF being dragged through state government and territory government processes and the time it took to get through those processes and the restriction of only funding construction. The changes contained in this amendment essentially mean that the NAIF will fund more job-creating projects in the north because the NAIF will be able to provide more and not just in finance. On finance there is a cap of $50 million per project and no more than a 50 per cent share. So the NAIF, or essentially taxpayers, won't have a controlling interest. That is fantastic news. I can think of a number of big job-creating projects that could benefit from this: the Urannah Dam project, the Bowen Marine Centre of Excellence project, the Whitsunday Skyway tourism experience project and the Collinsville coal-fired power station project.

This amendment will expand eligibility. The NAIF was previously restricted to funding construction works only. This expansion will allow the NAIF to finance projects involving equipment purchases for leasing, training and the expansion of existing business operations. The definition of 'public benefit' is also going to be expanded to take into account factors, such as jobs—jobs being the most important thing in the north—regional income, opportunity for local suppliers, opportunity for Indigenous businesses and opportunity for communities.

The NAIF will have an increased risk appetite, which is very important given the situation we are now in as we recover from the effects of the pandemic. We should be providing the NAIF with more flexibility to support, yes, riskier projects but bolder projects, with the potential to deliver significant economic benefit in the north. The amendment includes removing the prohibition against the Commonwealth assuming the majority of risk in any project.

Another change I am pleased to see is faster lending. The NAIF will have the option to now lend directly to project proponents rather than having those loans made through states that have added, sadly, to the length of time it's taken for money to get out the door. That'll simplify the lending process and reduce the red tape burden for the project proponents. I'm also pleased to see changes to allow the NAIF to collaborate with other lending institutions to support smaller projects between $1 million and $10 million. I am already in discussions on a significant farming operation in the Burdekin about accessing some of this lower, smaller finance to enable a unique glasshouse system of horticulture to be set up. We are going to explore that further.

I've heard the criticisms from the previous speaker, the member for Ballarat, as someone from New South Wales who probably doesn't know too much about the north—actually she's from Victoria; even worse than what I thought, coming from Victoria! There's not too much actually about the north that she knows, but I just wonder, given the criticisms that have been put in this place, whether it's understood clearly by the Labor Party that the NAIF can't just go around spraying money at projects that they like. It has to come via applications. Just like banks, such as the NAB, Westpac, ANZ or CBA. They can't just turn up to someone's business and say, 'Here's $5 million; we want to invest in this particular project.' That's not how banking works. Someone comes up with an idea. Someone does the work. Someone does the business case. Someone then comes to the bank, in this case the NAIF, and applies for the low-interest loan. These changes will assist in getting that money out the door, because it will make it easier for applications to come forward.

There are quite a number of applications that have gone out. The NAIF has made close to $3 billion investments into projects. A number of those are either in or adjacent to my electorate. In Townsville, we've got the Townsville Airport with $50 million towards an $80 million project, creating 257 jobs. I acknowledge the member for Herbert here, who is a long supporter of that and also a strong supporter of the JCU Technology Innovation Complex, with $96 million to support a project creating 270 jobs. The mining industry is still going strong. There is a pipeline of projects that will require a larger workforce. With this JCU project, we could attract more young students into the region to secure the necessary qualifications to fill the gaps in the resources sector and other sectors that are vitally needed. The JCU have also applied for $46 million for university student accommodation, creating 569 jobs.

The Mater Private Hospital in Townsville has secured $19 million to create a car park as part of the hospital redevelopment, helping locals ensure that they've got greater access to the hospital, with more car parking provision. That creates 14 jobs. We've got the great North Queensland Cowboys—may they long live forever and win a lot more than they have been. The Cowboys are going to roll out a high performance centre. There's a sports medical and allied health service with $20 million investment from the NAIF. It has a total project value of $35 million, creating 213 construction jobs and 58 ongoing operational jobs. This is real stuff.

Just west of Mackay, in Claremont, we've got Signature Beef, in the member for Capricornia's electorate. She's a strong supporter of this project, as am I. They received $24 million in finance to create a beef processing facility out west of Mackay. That's going to create 270 jobs. This is real money out the door, with real jobs being created.

All in all, I'm just talking about North Queensland projects. NAIF investments are creating over 3½ thousand jobs from over $1.3 billion investment, and that is just in Queensland. I know there's far more potential from a number of proponents who have ideas on the table to grow the north. I welcome steps being taken to amend the NAIF so that we can see more players getting the go ahead and more jobs created in the north. Thank you.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:59): I rise to speak on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021, which extends the capacity of the NAIF to provide assistance across the north of Australia. I like to read books when I'm catching a plane, often a book on history, or a biography; I find them interesting. My colleagues sometimes have a go at me for the size of the books I carry, which look like you could do weights with them! But one day on the way back from parliament to Queensland, on a Friday morning, I got hold of the report Our north, our future: white paper on developing northern Australia, released in 2015, and I was pretty excited when I read it. I thought it was a pretty good report which looked at the challenges we face. With a population of just over a million north of the Tropic of Capricorn but 40 per cent of our landmass, it's not just an economic development issue; it's a national security issue and I think a social justice issue for our Indigenous brothers and sisters, who make up such a large proportion of the north of Australia.

But I've got to say, this government, when they brought in the NAIF, really messed it up. They've released only $218.4 million of the $5 billion they've allocated, and of course this facility runs out in the middle of this year. So, because of the NAIF not working the way it should have worked, the government's now having to extend it for five years, change it to smaller projects, change the facility provision, bypass states and territories and even do some amendments that look like they take into consideration the experience of our Indigenous brothers and sisters in the north, so they made some important amendments. But we shouldn't have had to get to this point, because, as Labor's been saying—and I know some opposite have said it as well—we should be supporting the economic development of northern Australia, the protection of its environment, which is fragile, and the empowerment of northern Australia's First Nations population. There are incredible opportunities in northern Australia, from the Northern Territory to Western Australia, the Kimberley and up in the Torres Strait, and in the major provincial cities of Queensland and the outback of Queensland. These opportunities include agriculture, tourism, biofuels, renewable energy, mining, tropical medicine and the like.

So, this legislation shouldn't have been necessary, but it is, because the government has completely messed it all up, after the opportunities and the excitement that you could have experienced when reading the white paper. This government has failed northern Australia. We've seen some good governments in northern Australia, at times—the Queensland Labor government, the Western Australian government, who placed an enormous amount of emphasis on infrastructure, airports, ports, the establishment of supply chains, a competitive tax environment, a skilled workforce and a whole range of issues that they've addressed and are addressing. I commend the McGowan government and the Palaszczuk government for the work they've done.

On this side we have supported the NAIF and had hoped that the government would do better, and unfortunately they have not. The member for Dawson can talk about all the projects that have been committed to, identified and thought about. But the release of the money is crucial. The member talked about the banking industry. Well, I'm telling you, you can't actually buy that house-and-land package unless the bank releases the money so that you can actually settle that and buy it. This government has not released the money—just $218.4 million out of $5 billion. It has not been a good investment. That is not a good track record. You can say you're 'going towards'. You can say you're 'having discussions', or negotiations, or that you've signed a memorandum of understanding. But you've actually not got the money out the door.

So, if this particular legislation will get the money out the door, Labor will support it. But it shouldn't have had to come to this. We do support another five-year extension. But there are those opposite who know, in their heart of hearts, that the government has not fulfilled the potential of the NAIF. It has been the 'no actual infrastructure facility'. They can't even be specific about the number of jobs or the amount of money they've allocated.

When I spoke in response to the minister's ministerial statement in October last year I pointed out that the minister said one thing on 30 September last year in terms of the money they'd committed and then another thing in terms of the jobs. By six or seven days later—I think it was 6 October, about a week later—they had lost 700 jobs and $400 million. That was in his own ministerial press releases. They couldn't even get that right within seven or eight days. They couldn't even work that out. How can you lose 700 jobs and about $400 million in about seven days? This was in the minister's own press releases.

The government can't get the story straight. If this legislation will help them then we'll support it, but they haven't done a good job in northern Australia and they haven't done a good job on the NAIF. The fact that they have this legislation before the chamber today indicates quite clearly that they've messed up and haven't handled it well. The promises that were there with the white paper haven't been fulfilled and the government is playing catch up. I hope this works. We've been arguing for some of these things, like a more flexible approach in terms of credit facilities and also smaller projects as well. I hope the government gets this right for the sake of my home state of Queensland. It's certainly a fact that having this legislation before the chamber is an indictment on this government and a demonstration of its failure.

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (12:06): I rise in support of the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021.

The $5 billion Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility has certainly been a game changer for northern Australia. It was great to see this coming out of our Pivot north report, as a recommendation for a funding stream—a report by the committee I chaired at the time. However, I do concede that there have been some initial teething problems. That's why we have to bring these amendments on. I notice that the member for Blair has left the chamber now—he wouldn't understand this because Blair is well below us, in the south-east corner, so he's not really talking about northern Australia. He would need to concede something when he talks about cooperation: the Northern Territory government, a Labor government, has been very proactive in grabbing opportunities that the NAIF has presented and the Western Australian Labor government has also been quite proactive in grabbing opportunities.

But the Queensland state Labor government have been absolutely abysmal. They have failed in every way. They have dragged their feet and done everything they can to make sure that this program hasn't been successful. Unfortunately, as a direct result of that, we've lost out on so many different opportunities in relation to this. What we're doing now reflects on the lack of interest and cooperation by the Queensland government. In the difficulties experienced by the Queensland government they've done everything they can to step in the way of really good projects and then used the fact that they haven't got up as an excuse to throw some political barbs. It's very, very disappointing.

In the time the NAIF has been operating, the Morrison government has listened to stakeholders in the north and we're making the necessary changes to ensure that the NAIF is more agile and adaptive to help drive the economic recovery. As of 12 February 2021, the NAIF had made $2.8 billion in investment commitments. These commitments are forecast to support 8,000 jobs and to generate around $6.6 billion in economic impact for northern Australia. Fifteen projects, worth a total of $1 billion, have loan contracts in place, meaning that projects are underway and jobs are being created in the north. There are around $2.9 billion worth of projects under due diligence and a further $3.3 billion in total projects that are active inquiries. This demonstrates the level of demand for NAIF finance under the current policy settings. Reforms are opening up equity investment and expanding the scope of projects, allowing the NAIF to enter on-lending partnerships. This has expanded the pace of investment commitments and outflow of funds, and will continue to increase.

The benefits for the NAIF are already evident in my own electorate of Leichhardt. NAIF investment will fund a new floating terminal for bauxite miners, Metro Mining, on the Skardon River in north-western Cape York. A $47.5 million NAIF loan will allow the new infrastructure for the company to load larger vessels as part of its planned Bauxite Hills Mine stage 2 expansion project. Prior to COVID there was a total workforce in the mine of around 200 people. Around 30 per cent of that workforce were local Indigenous people, but, like many other businesses and companies across Australia, Metro Mining was hit hard by the global pandemic. However, I understand mining operations will recommence in April this year, which is next month, with an initial workforce of 100 people, 27 per cent of whom are going to be Indigenous. This investment will also have significant boosts for businesses in Cape York and the Far North, and more than 95 per cent of Metro's mining supplies is coming from Far North Queensland. I recently wrote to all the mayors in Cairns, Cape York and the Torres Strait, as well as the region's advocacy bodies, to inform them of the proposed reforms and urge them to take advantage of the changes.

I want to touch on one major reform contained in the bill that I believe will supercharge the north, particularly as we emerge from the COVID pandemic. The ability of the NAIF to lend directly to project proponents in certain circumstances will simplify the lending process and reduce the administrative burden. While the states and the Territory governments remain important stakeholders for the NAIF, the ability to lend directly and bypass the states empowers the NAIF to bring projects to contractual close faster, so proponents can get on with creating jobs and developing the north. This is one of the critical points, and I have to say that this is particularly focused at the lack of cooperation from Queensland. This change also permits NAIF to establish on-lending partnerships and local financiers to improve access to NAIF finances on small projects—which is particularly important to further drive Indigenous led projects, which tend to be smaller in scale—and to improve access to NAIF finance for smaller First Nations businesses. A lot of these businesses are much smaller than is provided for in the current guidelines, so it gives them an opportunity to capture the First Nations businesses.

Another reform contained in the bill that I believe will certainly be extremely beneficial is the expansion of eligibility for projects. This reform will make NAIF finance available for additional elements of infrastructure construction, such as equipment leasing, training and expansion of existing businesses. I know that, in the past, this has been a really major inhibitor for some businesses in being able to access a loan, and they will certainly welcome this. This reform will ensure that NAIF can take a holistic approach to supporting economic growth.

NAIF will play a critical role in supporting the recovery of northern Australia from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sadly, more often than not, those on the opposite side have been more interested in playing politics, and I'm referring here specifically to the Queensland state government attacking the good work that the NAIF is doing. Never at any stage do they offer solutions, which is really no surprise. I urge those opposite, particularly the shadow minister for northern Australia, to actually work with the government to help deliver real outcomes for the north, instead of only being interested in scoring a few points, and a few likes and retweets on Twitter.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:13): Right at the outset, I want to back up the member for Leichhardt's acknowledgement of the sterling work of the Northern Territory government in getting maximum benefit out of the NAIF that has been possible. These have been difficult times to get assistance from that facility, but we all hope that much better days are ahead.

It is a pleasure to speak on this proposed amendment bill, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and it does seem that the government, in relation to the NAIF, has finally started to listen. The proposed bill incorporates changes that we've been calling on the government to make for some years, so of course I support these changes, and I look forward to good results for the north out of the NAIF in the future.

Also important, I think it's a good time just to cast our minds back. It is quite impossible for any informed observer of this process of the NAIF to escape the conclusion that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has so far been a failure. Let's not forget that the NAIF has a budget of $5 billion, and as of 30 October last year how much of that $5 billion had actually been released into the community for the private sector and other stakeholders to work with? Only $218 million since the NAIF launched back in 2016. That's less than five per cent of the funds spent in five years—five per cent in five years of that big number: $5 billion. It sounded impressive when it was announced five years ago, but only $218 million at this stage has gone out onto the ground. When you think about the vast untapped potential of the north and the many projects that just need a bit of a hand to flourish and succeed, a tiny spend of $218 million is indeed an appalling figure. When you think about the great fanfare of the announcement, it's a pretty unimpressive figure. And it is why the NAIF earned the nickname 'no actual infrastructure fund'.

These challenges and problems are not new. I've spoken about them many times. My judgement of the NAIF over the years has been harsh but rightly so, because the north of Australia is so important, and the NAIF has spent so little of the $5 billion over those five years. There is untapped potential, and I think it is important to say that we demand that this facility actually work to help people in northern Australia. Indeed, over the years it was difficult not to come to the conclusion that it was simply a marketing exercise and that the government wanted to look like they cared about the north. But the way it was designed meant that it was very difficult to get the funds out there onto the ground, so I welcome these changes.

There are a number of changes. Firstly, the purpose of financial assistance has been broadened. Rather than focusing exclusively on the construction of infrastructure, which excludes many different projects, the NAIF will be able to fund projects which promote the development of economic infrastructure in northern Australia. This may include buying equipment, leasing, training staff and expanding existing business operations. A further broadening is in relation to NAIF eligible projects. The act in its current form requires that a project must create economic growth and stimulate population growth in northern Australia, both very worthwhile aims. However, the bill before us will change that requirement to an either/or proposition, rather than requiring both objectives to be met by each project. That's going to help get more funds out onto the ground.

Secondly, the NAIF will now be able to provide funds directly to the proponents of eligible projects. Under the act as it currently stands, funding can only flow to projects through state or territory governments. I don't for a minute believe that the underperformance of the NAIF so far has been a consequence of the interference of state and territory governments. In fact, environmental groups have expressed concerns that the removal of state and territory governments will make it more likely that projects with more serious environmental impacts are funded. However, I will note that the governments in question, that of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, have all indicated that they're comfortable with this change. There are many projects in the works for the Northern Territory. I'll list them quickly. They are in different stages of the process. We hope that they can all be funded. Those that have received funding so far are the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm expansion, the airport expansion and an Indigenous tourism project.

One thing I want to draw the House's attention to is that, with the departure of NAIF board member Barry Calder, who is from the Territory, a new spot will open up on the NAIF board. That spot must be filled by a Territorian. The replacement of Barry Calder by anyone other than a Territorian will completely devalue and debase the NAIF. The NAIF already requires rejuvenation and improvement, to say the least. Without NT representation, improving the NAIF will be impossible. Representation is important. One thing this proposed bill fails to do is consider how the NAIF could be meaningfully improved by expanding the representativeness of its board. The NAIF board requires not only Northern Territory representation but First Nations representation. They need a First Nations voice helping to shape that agenda. I also believe that the Indian Ocean territories must be included in our definition for northern Australia. After all, the member for Lingiari represents people in the Indian Ocean territories. The bill is far from perfect but it is an opportunity to improve the NAIF and make it actually deliver for northern Australia. I commend the government for listening to us and proposing to incorporate our changes, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (12:21): I'm very glad to support the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 because it will mean great things for North Queensland and particularly the people of Townsville, who I have the privilege of representing in this place. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has already had a major impact in Herbert, and these changes will only make it easier for it to have an even greater impact. So far, it's made funding commitments of $2.8 billion to projects that are forecast to generate at least $6.6 billion in economic impact. This is why we're asking the sector what they want and providing the means by which they can do it, in the form of these government backed loans.

We in Townsville are lucky to be reaping the benefits of a large number of NAIF projects that have been backed by the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Not only is this a show of confidence in our region; it's an opportunity for us to capitalise on the employment and economic flow-on effects. In Townsville, we have the new car park at the Mater Hospital, which is worth $20 million. There's also $50 million that has been approved for the Townsville Airport redevelopment, although those plans are currently on hold as we see what happens in the aviation sector post COVID.

We've also supported two projects at James Cook University—$96 million for the technology innovation complex and $46 million for student accommodation—both of which are now under construction. In 2018—it's disappointing that the member for Blair has left—I was with the then minister and we announced this $46 million for student accommodation. Fast-forward a year and a half and I'm the member and I go back and do the same announcement. It has taken so long for this project to get up. The failure and the let-down was with the Treasurer of the Queensland Labor state government. The Treasurer at the time just put it at the bottom of the pile and didn't want to sign off on the project. The amendments to the bill will allow us to streamline this process and remove the blockage that is the Queensland Labor state government, which I'm looking forward to because we'll be able to get more projects underway in Townsville.

These great projects for our community are backed by public investment. There's one project that I want to talk about in more detail, and that's the $35 million investment in the Cowboys' brand-new HQ and Community, Training and High Performance Centre. It supports 271 jobs. The staff started to move in last month and it's an absolutely incredible project. The Cowboys' new home is positioned right next to the brand-new Queensland Country Bank Stadium and is able to take full advantage of its position. Of that $35 million federal government investment, $25 million was a loan from the NAIF. This has pretty much covered the entire cost and it has allowed this amazing project to go ahead. It has an indoor kicking area. I had a tour a couple of weeks ago and it was an honour to walk through it. It is a great place. I saw the local players get ready and train. I'm expecting big things from the Cowboys because of this facility. It has recovery pools inside. It has chilled and heated pools for their rest and recovery. It has a lecture theatre and study areas and a public coffee shop where anybody can come for a coffee and have a chance to spot a player and get a photo. There are a few new jobs there in the cafe, which adds to the construction jobs; there were 213 during the construction and 58 have been supported through the operational phase and as a result of the expansion. That's a project that has already been delivered, and there are other ones that are getting started or are halfway through. So we're seeing that the NAIF is working. It's providing finance for massive projects to get over the line and creating much needed infrastructure as well as jobs at the same time.

So why are we here today? Why are we wanting to make changes to the way NAIF works? The main thing is that we want to get those small businesses and organisations, as well as the big ones, over the line. There are so many great projects out there that haven't qualified because they're not large enough on the scale that the NAIF currently demands, but they would still create dozens if not hundreds of jobs either in the construction phase or ongoing, which is good for our economy. So we are allowing the NAIF to be a proactive financier. That means not just offering a loan that has to be paid back but actually making equity investments. This will open up more opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses.

This decision was made in response to the feedback that we needed to see faster approval times, to see more focus on smaller projects and remove the restriction that NAIF funding was for physical infrastructure only. That means that, with this bill, the NAIF will be opened up to finance not only capital infrastructure but also other elements of successful projects, such as equipment purchase or leasing, training and the expansion of business operations. There will be a cap on the $5 billion amount that can be used for equity investments; that will be $500 million. We'll see the NAIF in partnerships with local financiers. NAIF finance could be as simple as heading down to the local bank.

I'm really excited to see what businesses and entrepreneurs in our region will achieve with these new financing options. I think this will be a game changer, helping those small operators take on bigger projects which stand to benefit us all and, I know, will benefit the region, especially in Townsville. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:27): It's my pleasure to speak, albeit briefly, in this debate on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021. We on this side of the chamber will be supporting the legislation, although I want to raise two issues of concern to me. I won't go through the details of the bill; others have done that adequately. I note that there is recognition of members of the NAIF board having economic experience in Indigenous communities. It is my strong view that it should be mandated that there be a First Nations representative on the NAIF board. I hope that the government saw the merit of this and amended the legislation to ensure that that happened. Secondly, I note that they're seeking changes for the local government area of Ngaanyatjarraku, in Western Australia, to be considered part of northern Australia for the purpose of the NAIF.

I've submitted, and there have been discussions with the minister's office through the shadow minister, as I understand it, to have the Indian Ocean territories considered part of northern Australia. You might ask, 'Aren't they?' They are, but they're not considered part of northern Australia for the purposes of this bill. That, in my view, is a joke. Christmas Island is located at latitude 10.490291 degrees south, longitude 105.63275 degrees east. Check your maps! The Cocos Islands are located at 12.200603 degrees south and 96.85894 degrees east. These are both close to the latitude of Darwin, so how they could not be considered part of northern Australia is totally beyond me. By air, Christmas Island is a 3½-hour flight from Perth and the Cocos Islands are a 4½-hour flight from Perth. Christmas Island is 2,600 from Perth and the Cocos Islands are 3,000 kilometres from Perth. Christmas Island is roughly the same distance from Darwin. So why aren't these considered part of northern Australia?

We know that there is a national demand for investment on these two communities for a whole range of reasons. We know that infrastructure is an issue for both these communities. For those who don't know, the major industry on Christmas Island is phosphate mining, an industry that, in the wake of COVID-19, has experienced increase demand out of China, Europe and Africa. Christmas Island has limited handling facilities because it lacks a harbour and access to port facilities. It has a prolonged monsoonal swell season, which is current on Christmas Island, to the point where the ship bringing supplies in, which was due in November, didn't arrive until three weeks ago. Obviously better freight services development on Christmas Island is the type of project that could be available through NAIF. There are many other projects which are being proposed and thought about, such as the mountain bike project, opportunities for an eco resort on Christmas Island. There are so many other things that people would like to do, if they were able to access the sorts of resources that are available to other parts of Australia. There is a unique place here because insurance is a major problem, so getting lending from financial institutions is really difficult.

The Cocos Islands have similar infrastructure issues as Christmas Island. It's also subject to monsoonal weather events. This year the community had a major cyclone event which required emergency procedures on the major populated island, Home Island, to be activated when there was a danger of major flooding. The extreme wet season has also seen delays in freight reaching the island, as ships are unable to load barges to be towed to the island, resulting in food shortages and a lack of access to vital medical supplies. Alarmingly, in recent years, major sandbagging along the beaches of Cocos has become increasingly common as the community deals with climate change due to rising sea levels. Cocos, if you like, is the canary—in this case, the birdcage—on the island, sounding the warning for the need for action on climate change on Cocos. Again, this is the sort of development and infrastructure requirement that could be addressed through the NAIF process.

There are obviously proposals for other economic development opportunities, tourism infrastructure and other things. Already the local council, with the support of the community, is working with the potential developers to cater for a boutique eco-tourism resort. Islanders in the Indian Ocean territories want to enjoy the same access to services and food and medical security as mainlanders. They want to enjoy the same access to concessional loans and other measures which are being amended as part of this bill through the NAIF process yet they're being denied it by this government, who refuse to accept that Christmas and the Cocos Islands, the Indian Ocean Territories, part of Australia, part of northern Australia, their opportunity to be considered as part of northern Australia through this NAIF process. That is a shame and it should be changed. I invite the government to amend the legislation when it hits the Senate to include the Christmas and Cocos Islands, the Indian Ocean Territories as part of the NAIF consideration.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:33): I rise today to speak on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021. For those who don't know, in shorthand, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is called the NAIF. It was established under statute in 2016. It is a government agency with $5 billion to invest to provide the basis for economic and population growth in northern Australia. The NAIF was established with the intent to fill financing gaps in northern Australia by being more risk tolerant to uniquely northern Australian characteristics like remoteness, distance and climate. As of September last year, the NAIF has made approximately $2.7 billion worth of loans and has $2.3 billion left in funding.

What this bill does is not entirely what is being portrayed in this place. This bill will extend the life of the NAIF for a further five years, which is fine, but it will make substantial changes to the NAIF's operations. The explanatory memorandum states that these changes will strengthen the NAIF's governance and enhance the scope, speed and flexibility to provide financial assistance to support the development of northern Australian economic infrastructure. While the NAIF is an essential vehicle to support northern Australia, I do not agree that the changes will result in these outcomes. On the contrary, the changes will weaken independence and result in the potential funding of stranded assets with public money. The government claims that the reforms contained in this bill arise from the recent statutory review of the NAIF released in December last year. This review was not independent. It was conducted by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. This is basically the fox conducting a review of the safety of the hen house. These reviews must be conducted at arm's length from the government. The result is that this push is flawed from the very outset.

How can the public be assured that taxpayer money is being spent appropriately? This is really the funding of fossil fuel projects. Minister Pitt has made clear in his public comments that he would like to 'cut out state administration of the loans', which he said was 'partly to blame for delayed rollout of funding on projects'. But it is not as simple as cutting them out due to delays; they want to cut them out to push fossil fuel projects. In the past, state and territory veto has provided an important check on government expenditure. For example, when the NAIF proposed to make a $1 billion taxpayer funded loan to Adani Carmichael mine's rail line, the state government threatened to veto any loan and said they would veto any other proposals linked to Adani. So it is very clear here what the government want to do with these changes. The minister has said that this bill will enable the Commonwealth to bypass the state on certain projects, including interstate rail and gas projects.

In the government's Beetaloo Strategic Basin Plan, released in January, it also states:

The government has also announced changes to the NAIF … They can also support Beetaloo infrastructure developments.

It is very clear what is intended to be done here. The plan goes further and says the government would like to be:

facilitating Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) discussions to ensure that stakeholders do not miss out on Beetaloo gas development opportunities.

The Beetaloo Basin is a methane bomb. It is irresponsible in the extreme for the government to attempt to open it up. This is the same basin that the government's own department said would risk Australia failing to meet its Paris commitments. One conservative report projected that the basin will release some 117 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum, equivalent to one-fifth of Australia's annual emissions. We must reject any move to allow further funding to fossil fuel projects, especially in the Beetaloo Basin.

The NAIF should focus, instead, on clean technology and on the types of projects that are being raised by members in this place. Northern Australia can be a renewable energy superpower. Think of the Sun Cable and the Asian Renewable Energy Hub. Projects of this magnitude are possible with the right support. I know many renewable project developers in Warringah, particularly at the Manly Solar Beach Hub, who would support such a move and would no doubt be interested in developing clean energy projects in northern Australia with such support.

Item 11 in the amendment bill expands the functions of the NAIF to allow for the provision of financial assistance in the form of equity investments, meaning that the government could take a stake in the business and it's not a loan which is repayable. This increases the risk appetite of the NAIF as well as the Commonwealth's potential liability should the investment not work out. This is of particular concern when analysed in the context of the NAIF making investments in fossil fuel infrastructure that the market does not want to support.

Item 11 also allows for the acquisition of derivatives. The government states derivatives must only be used for, amongst other factors, achieving indirect exposure to financial assets and achieving transactional efficiency. That sounds a lot like financial jargon, but this language really gives NAIF a licence to do anything. It, in essence, gives NAIF management free rein to play around in derivatives. Even worse, there is no requirement to make a financial return. We are talking here about free rein to go for loss-making projects. It could mean the government buying gas contracts to guarantee the supply price and volume at a later date. It could mean supporting pipelines and it could mean funding Shine Energy's Collinsville coal-fired power plant—and I note the energy minister sitting there at the dispatch box.

However, problems arise if the gas or power plant are not needed due to factors, of course, like increasing penetration of renewable generation. The government would be left holding the problem and would still have to pay. And they may well do just that, as fossil-fuel-production extraction and its supporting infrastructure have huge carbon risk and are likely to be stranded assets in the very near future. The gas industry has had a shocking 2020, shedding huge amounts in shareholder value and writing down assets across the board. In particular, Santos, which is aiming to develop the Beetaloo, has written down over $8 billion worth in assets since 2014. So it's no surprise that industry has their hands out for government assistance. Of course they know that none of the projects they're proposing will get up without the government kick along.

I do not believe the taxpayer should foot the bill for bad fossil fuel investments. The NAIF should not be a slush fund for the minister's projects. There's a serious lack of independence proposed; the changes are likely to impact the independence of the NAIF board from the government. Currently, the NAIF board makes all investment decisions. Section 14 of the NAIF Act reads:

(1) The functions of the Board are:

(a) to decide, within the scope of the Investment Mandate, the strategies and policies to be followed by the Facility; …

Item 25 of this amendment bill provides that the secretary of the department will now be a member of the board. As the secretary reports to the minister for energy and the government, this change could open up the board to ministerial influence and could erode confidence in NAIF's investments. This is just a cynical attempt to consolidate influence on the already-weak governance of the NAIF.

This bill makes serious changes to the NAIF's governance that will facilitate payments to fossil fuel projects: let's be very clear about what this does. The bill will also make changes that will reduce the independence of the NAIF board. I do not support these changes. We cannot waste taxpayer money on fossil fuels and we cannot allow an agency to be so co-opted. At a time when our national debt is at record levels we must not allow the government to waste public funds on bad fossil fuel projects. We need the NAIF to be independent and focused on the future of infrastructure and development in northern Australia, and we need a future focus on technologies which are clean energy technologies.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:42): In the middle of a climate crisis, the government brings the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 to this parliament to take public money which could be going to schools and hospitals, instead using it for coal and gas.

We're in a climate emergency. Around the world and here in Australia, people are in rebellion against the billionaires and the big corporations who are pulling the strings of governments and politicians. This week in my electorate of Melbourne citizens have come together for a week of action and civil disobedience, disrupting business as usual in defence of a safe climate. I want to say very clearly for the historical record that these people are heroes. They're refusing to be bystanders. They're refusing to accept the failure of our governments and our leaders, and they're not going to stop until they see real action to fix the climate crisis. So I extend my solidarity to Extinction Rebellion and, on behalf of the Australian Greens, the solidarity of us all. Together, everyone across Australia—from the people taking direct action now to the student strikers and the people at home, worried about the future—will continue the struggle and, together, we will win.

There is no greater threat to northern Australia than the climate crisis. This should be a major factor in our consideration of this bill. That's because this bill seeks to extend the time frame and the remit of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—the NAIF. It will allow it to operate for another five years, insert a departmental officer onto the NAIF Board, remove the requirement to gain the support of the host state or territory for future projects supported by the NAIF, and expand the funding mechanisms to include equity investments and acquisitions of derivatives.

These amendments are promoted by the government as providing flexibility to deliver for the NT and northern Australia, but their aim is clear: the government wants to deliver for its mates. Minister Pitt has not even tried to hide his desire to use the facility as a slush fund for the gas industry. He has boasted about the amendments opening up more opportunities for Beetaloo infrastructure financing. It's a dirty energy fund that is yet another fossil fuel subsidy, on top of the fossil fuel subsidies that this government hands out to coal, gas and the dirty energy sector. Minister Pitt has boasted that the amendments will allow the Commonwealth to bypass the states on certain projects. I remind the parliament that the ability of state governments to veto investment decisions in fossil fuels was key to this slush fund not being used to prop up the economically irresponsible climate bond that is the Adani Carmichael mine.

The Greens will be proposing amendments to the bill in the Senate to restrain the excesses enabled by the NAIF and ensure that all investments have an eye to a sustainable future for northern Australia. The Greens have long argued that the NAIF must consider the Australian government's commitment to the temperature goals in the Paris Agreement, where we have agreed to commit to limit global warming to well below two degrees and to continue to work towards limiting it to 1½ degrees. But our current domestic pledges from this government—these targets that the minister boasts about meeting and beating—come nowhere close to what science shows is needed to meet the temperature goals under the Paris Agreement. But, without question, to have any chance of avoiding us going over the climate cliff and avoiding the climate crisis becoming a runaway chain reaction that we can't control, we cannot finance new fossil fuel infrastructure. That should be a baseline.

The discussion we should be having in this place is about how to phase out coal and gas, not how to take money that should be going to schools and hospitals and use it to build more coal and gas infrastructure. But that's what this government is trying to do. The Morrison government wants to use the NAIF to fund gas pipelines which will help gas companies who want to open up new gas fields. They want to use public funds to throw more fuel on the climate crisis. NAIF should be required to assess the environmental and climate impact of any project as part of assessing whether it is suitable for investment. It must also consider the environmental record of the people in charge of those projects.

One of the things this bill wants to do is open up the NAIF for equity investments in fossil fuels. In other words, because the market and the private sector are saying, 'No-one in their right mind is going to build new coal and gas projects,' the government comes along and says, 'Let's use public money to help you out, and we might even take an ownership stake in your company to give you a help-out because we know that the private sector can't do it on its own.' This is because parts of the private sector are starting to understand the gravity of the climate crisis. They understand that the fuel from renewables is free, but dirty coal and gas not only are polluting but are more expensive, which is why many of these projects aren't going to get off the ground unless the government takes public money that could be going to schools and hospitals and gives it to big gas corporations—the big gas corporations that pay zero tax, that have over $50 billion in revenue between them but pay zero dollars tax. Instead of saying, 'Maybe the gas corporations should pay more tax,' the government says, 'How can we give you even more handouts and give you some public money, instead of asking you to pay your fair share of tax?' It wants to potentially have the public on the hook for owning some of this infrastructure that is going to make the climate crisis worse. This will mean the public ends up exposed to risk for these stranded assets and exposed to risk as, hopefully, a future government, once we've kicked this terrible government out, starts to take action on the climate crisis. This government is putting the public on the hook for future risk if we get serious about tackling the climate crisis. An acquisition of derivatives can leave the government with an open-ended, unquantifiable liability, if a project proponent becomes insolvent, so they're putting you on the hook not just for equities sake but for derivatives down the line as well.

I note that there are some worthwhile projects, including those championed by First Nations organisations, that could benefit from some broader investment opportunities. But these types of speculative investments could be used, as the government wants to propose, to underwrite gas supply and prop up otherwise stranded assets. Given the NAIF's poor governance practices and processes for assessing risk on public lending, especially risks related to fossil fuels and climate change, this is an unacceptable risk. Tighter rules around eligibility for equity investment options introduced by the bill are essential to ensure the government isn't left carrying the can for unsustainable fossil fuel projects.

For a bill with 'Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility' in the title, it's pretty astounding that the bill proposes to remove the mandatory requirement for infrastructure to stimulate population growth in northern Australia, which was the key motivation for the NAIF in the first place. Removing this requirement will make it easier for the minister to push NAIF into funding gas infrastructure and pipelines, including pipelines that are not located in northern Australia. The independence of the board is also compromised under this. The government has never set up the NAIF in the way, in the power sharing parliament of 2010, we set up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—that is, as an independent body with statutory authority and rigour. But the government is so unhappy with the decisions that have been made so far that it wants to exert even more control by requiring the secretary of the department to be a member of the NAIF board, undermining any semblance of independence. It makes the NAIF directly susceptible to ministerial influence. This is a slush fund for the minister to reward the big gas corporations who pay no tax, who fast track the climate crisis and who, in many instances, donate to the Liberal Party and the Labor Party.

The minister has already been spruiking fossil fuel projects and using the NAIF to further the government's discredited gas-fired recovery. When the NAIF was created, the government said:

The expert, transparent and arms-length design of the Board lends credibility to financial markets, while ensuring the Commonwealth invests in projects which are viable, provide public benefit and unlock the potential of northern Australia.

That was their spin at the time, but now they're not even pretending that that's the case. When it turned out that the investments don't favour loss-making fossil fuel endeavours, the government has tried to regain control of the decisions by rewriting the rules and exerting more control over how those decisions are made.

In the Senate inquiry into the operation of the NAIF a few years ago, we heard evidence from First Nations and regional communities in northern Australia that the board needed to take a more innovative approach to investment, looking beyond traditional and often outdated and unsustainable projects, like mines and dams, but this goes the other way.

As I mentioned earlier, the Greens strongly oppose allowing the NAIF to directly loan to entities, bypassing state and territory governments. The NAIF's clear function is to grant financial assistance to states and territories for the construction of Northern Australia economic infrastructure. But previous reviews of the NAIF identified the need of the NAIF to work more closely with state and territory governments, not to cut them out. Providing the option of bypassing the states and territories increases the federal government's power to drive new fossil fuel infrastructure at the public expense and takes away a key check and balance. Cutting out the states also raises serious and unresolved questions as to constitutional validity. This bill should, at a minimum, be sent to a committee so that this important issue can be properly considered.

In conclusion, at a time when we are faced with a climate crisis, when we know we have a few short years to turn the ship around before we go over the climate cliff after which we can't wind back the effects of climate change, most people would be looking to this parliament for a plan to get out of coal and gas. They have probably come to accept, sadly, that the government's not interested in a plan to get out of coal and gas. But most people would be shocked to know that their own money, money that could be going to schools and hospitals is instead being rerouted to big gas corporations who pay no tax, to make the climate crisis worse, simply because those corporations also happen to be donors to the Liberal and Labor parties. That is what is going on here. This is a form of money laundering that will make the climate crisis worse. By saying to the big corporations, 'We're not only going to refuse to ask you to pay your fair share of tax, we're going to use public money for you to go and build these gas pipelines that are going to fast track the climate crisis, that risk making large parts of our country uninhabitable for our children during our children's lifetime.'

We have heard, over repeated times in estimates, from our own Bureau of Meteorology who have said that as we are forecast, on current projections, to hit 3.4 degrees of global warming by the end of this century in Australia that probably means a degree higher. That means, under this government, and these smug ministers who sit there delivering for their gas corporation mates, during the lifetime of my daughter, of primary school children across this country, on current trends Australia is set to warm 4½ degrees. That is a hell scape. That means large parts of Australia, including northern Australia, will become uninhabitable during my daughter's lifetime, during the lifetime of Australia's primary school students. We should be doing everything in our power to stop that. We definitely should not be using public money to make the situation worse and that's why we oppose this bill. When it gets through here we will be moving substantial amendments in the Senate.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (12:57): There has been a profound change in the NAIF. We hope the minister, who I hope has been responsible for those changes, will continue on that positive course. To date in North Queensland we have got $50 million for the airport in Townsville, which I use maybe four times a week. I have seen absolutely no change in anything at the Townsville airport. There was a nice little golden handshake for a foreign corporation that owns the airport with no benefit to the users of the airport.

We have James Cook University technical innovation building, $100 million. Here we go. That's $150 million and no tangible benefit that we can perceive whatsoever. Bear with me for a moment, I am just going through them: $610 million for a foreign corporation where the Australian applicants were passed over. It was given to them and then they got a $610 million golden handshake. Charles Darwin University got $151 million really for a building. Universities are not operating as such because no-one can go to them on account of COVID. They are having a good holiday actually. The Darwin Port got $300 million. The Darwin Port was sold by Andrew Robb to the Chinese. Then he moved onto a million dollars a year the next year off the company that he sold the seaport to.

Let's have a look at this: $300 million for a Chinese port; $151 million for a university that's not working; $610 million for a foreign corporation, which passed over an Australian corporation that should have got the contract in north Queensland; $46 million for extensions to JCU in Townsville; $20 million for a football team; $150 million for Northern Territory Airports, which I understand is foreign owned; $50 million for Townsville Airport, from which I have seen no benefit whatsoever; and $100 million for the James Cook University Technology Innovation Complex. Not bad! That's $1.5 billion that has gone to create virtually no jobs.

I would hope Minister Pitt is listening in. You're doing a good job, my friend. But, prior to him getting the portfolio, the blokes there handed out $1. 5 billion to produce not a single job. And the vast bulk of it has gone to foreign corporations. Their handling of this has been absolutely disastrous. Peta Credlin said on television that, in the fifth year, we gave $1. 5 billion to this fund and not a single cent has been spent. So then they went out on a wild spending spree and blew $1.5 billion.

That's in the past. I cannot not fault them since the new minister has taken over. I think that, at long last, they're starting to perform the way they should have performed. But, unfortunately, they have burnt up a couple of thousand million dollars there to achieve hardly a single damn job and hardly a single development of value to the Australian people. I mean, closed universities and foreign ports are hardly advantages for the Australian people. The only one I'm intimately familiar with is the Townsville Airport, which I use; as I said, I can see no difference from where it was prior to the spending of the $50 million.

The NAIF has been very good on the issue of CopperString, and so have successive governments. I want to put on public record my praise for the Rudd government, for the Gillard government and for the 'Abbott-Credlin government'. Each of them gave, in today's money, over $400 million as a grant to this scheme. We compete on the world market with our silver, lead and zinc. We have the biggest zinc mine in the world. We built the biggest copper mine in the world. We have one of the six or seven biggest fertiliser plants in the world—all in the North West Minerals Province. We can't compete because we get our electricity at a price that makes us hopelessly uncompetitive. It's wonderful for this place to say, 'Oh, we will have a competitive market,' but it ain't any competitive market for the Pilbara that's earning you all of your money, it ain't any competitive market for the North West Minerals Province that's earning you all of your money and it ain't any competitive market for Olympic Dam. Coal, yes. But the other three? Nothing. So the Rudd government immediately announced that they were connecting those three areas to the national grid so we would get competitively priced power.

Now, our problem in the North West Minerals Province—and I ask the minister to please listen to this—is that we have one tiny little power station, hopelessly non-competitive, that has no economies of scale; it's too small. Also, it is on gas, and the governments of Australia—state mostly, in this case, and federal—gave our gas away for 6c a unit. We currently buy it for $16.60 a unit. Our competitors are buying it for $6, and we've got to buy it for $16.60, and unfortunately for us, we need the gas as well as the gas electricity, so we get doubly hit. So, we get hit (a) because of the tiny little power station, (b) because it's on gas and (c) because there's a monopoly, and it would very stupid if they didn't take advantage of their monopoly situation in the marketplace.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Glencore and the fertiliser plant will benefit to the tune of $50 million a year if that power line goes in. There is also no doubt in my mind that if it doesn't go in there'll be a complete collapse in the economy of the North West Minerals Province. It's not pie in the sky, or garbage. Glencore announced 2½ years ago the closure of the copper refinery in Townsville and the copper smelter in Mount Isa, and of course the fertiliser plant has no sulphur coming from the copper operations, so it closed as well.

That was announced. Massive concessions have been provided by the state government. I don't want to be cynical, but they were provided just before the state elections—which happened to be when the closures were going to occur. So, we were very, very lucky; we got let off the hook! But we're only off the hook for a little while, unless we can get that. And Minister, if your government is wanting to do something, Eva is a mine that will produce 160,000 tonnes of copper ore a year, which makes everything out there viable and will put about $1 billion a year into the Australian economy. In my opinion, it will not go ahead unless it has competitively priced power. Either you want it or you don't want it.

I can sit here and give you 20 other Eva examples. But we need Eva to keep the copper refinery in Townsville going, to keep the copper smelter in Mount Isa going, to keep the copper mines in Cloncurry and Mount Isa going and to keep the fertiliser plant, which brings in $2,000 million a year by itself, going. That is what is needed to keep them going. We've had a very positive response. I thank the minister, because there's been a very positive response from NAIF on this. But there will have to be more money. Also, after all this wastage, Minister, you haven't got a lot of money left in the piggy bank, and that money has to be replenished. It is the one fund that can deliver.

I have great faith in the new minister. I have had great faith in the new board, and the directions it's taking. I've read out to you the disasters that have occurred—in five years, not a dollar went out on anything, and then, among the projects that did get money, there wasn't a single job; half of them were for foreign corporations and the other half were for universities that were closed. The only one I'm really familiar with is Townsville Airport. Well, I can absolutely assure you that you could take the 10,000 people who use that airport regularly and they could tell you there has been no change in anything at that airport. So, what they did with the $50 million, who knows? And really, who cares at this stage?

I conclude my remarks by saying that we have had a whole new world, with a new regime under a new minister, and a new board. Already they're doing exciting things, but a lot more money will have to be put into the till if this is to play a meaningful part in the development of Australia.

Before I sit down, for the economy of Australia there is $3,000 million a year out there waiting in the Hells Gate proposal. It is superclean energy. It actually lowers the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Previous speakers have gone on and on about the world coming to an end over CO2, and to some degree I agree with them in a minor way. This project will deliver seven per cent of Australia's petrol, 1½ per cent of Australia's electricity and 10 per cent of Australia's ox production, pig production or chook production through the feedlots and it will lower the existing CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is not an emission and is not a by-product; it is a product. We want to produce as much CO2 as is humanly possible because it feeds algae. The CO2 comes from the algae and the CO2 goes into the algae, so we're putting CO2 into algae.

There's $3 billion for the Australian economy in that one project. If the transmission line goes through, you can add another $2 million to the Australian economy. If you build a rail line and a multi-user facility in the Galilee, there will be $20 billion coming in. If you give money to silicon development, there will be another $5 billion coming in from the super-rich silica deposits in Cape York—not at Cape Flattery or at Hope Vale but much further north. If you build a canal to enable us to get our fertiliser product out, we will give you the biggest fertiliser plant in the world, bringing in $6 billion a year and $2 billion in prawn production.

Minister, this is what we can give you, but we need that NAIF, so please take your gun down, put it at the head of the Treasurer and get that money.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Order! The member for Kennedy should withdraw that last comment please.

Mr KATTER: What last—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would assist the House if you would withdraw that last sentence.

Mr KATTER: Oh, sorry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or rephrase—

Mr KATTER: Can I say 'knuckle him'?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but you can rephrase.

Mr KATTER: That's a pity. I'll have to leave it to your imagination.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would assist the House if you would withdraw it. I'd appreciate that.

Mr KATTER: Yes, by implication, I withdrew it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Member for Kennedy.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (13:12): The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is a key element of the government's plan to unlock the enormous economic potential of northern Australia. I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum. The NAIF was established to provide concessional finance to infrastructure projects for the benefit of northern Australia. It encourages and complements private sector investment in the region, helping build confidence in northern Australia as an attractive place to live, work, invest and do business. The NAIF has already made investment decisions worth $2.8 billion, supporting job creation and economic development throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This track record of investment puts the NAIF in a great position to continue supporting northern Australia's economic development.

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 extends the active investment period of the NAIF. It also delivers reforms that will enhance its effectiveness and impact and that will assist with the economic recovery. The bill contains measures to accelerate investment decision-making and lending. These measures will make it easier and faster for eligible projects to access NAIF funds and get on with creating jobs and developing the north. In future, the NAIF will be able to lend directly to proponents in certain circumstances. The states and territories have been and will continue to be critical partners for the NAIF; however, the option of direct lending will enable the NAIF to reduce the administrative burden on those jurisdictions. The NAIF will be able to invest in on-lending partnerships. These will deliver NAIF finance to smaller projects with the assistance of a partner experienced in working with smaller proponents to access financial support. Finally, the bill extends the scope and flexibility of NAIF investment to ensure projects get the kind of tailored, innovative financial assistance they need to succeed. The correction to the bill's explanatory memorandum clarifies that the NAIF can provide this financial assistance in many forms, including equity investments to corporations.

This bill represents the first step in implementing the government's reforms to the NAIF. As soon as possible, a new investment mandate for the NAIF will be tabled. Together the bill and the investment mandate provide the operating framework for the NAIF, under which it can begin to deliver on these reforms.

In summing up, this bill transforms the NAIF into a more proactive investor for the benefit of northern Australia and the nation. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (13:21): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 24), omit the definition of Secretary.

(2) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 23), after item 15, insert:

15A At the end of Part 2

Add:

8A Prohibition on assistance for fossil fuel-based infrastructure

(1) Financial assistance must not be provided under this Act for the development of fossil fuel-based infrastructure.

(2) It must be a condition of any grant of financial assistance under this Act that the financial assistance not be used (whether directly or indirectly) for the development of fossil fuel-based infrastructure.

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), neither the Facility nor a subsidiary of the Facility may invest (whether directly or indirectly, including as a participant in a partnership, trust, joint venture or similar arrangement, through subsidiaries or other investment vehicles, or by any combination of these means) in fossil fuel-based infrastructure.

(4) In this section:

fossil fuel-based infrastructure:

(a) includes fossil fuel-based electricity generation capacity; and

(b) does not include electricity transmission infrastructure.

fossil fuels includes any of the following:

(a) coal;

(b) oil and other petroleum-based products;

(c) natural gas;

(d) products, by-products and wastes from extracting or processing fossils fuels to which paragraphs (a) to (c) apply.

(3) Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (line 29) to page 9 (line 1), omit the item.

(4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item.

(5) Schedule 1, item 42, page 10 (lines 15 to 24), omit the item.

These amendments will improve the integrity of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and prevent loss of taxpayer money on risky fossil fuel ventures.

Items 1, 3, 4 and 5 will omit provisions in this amendment bill which inserts that the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources would be able to join the board on the NAIF. The NAIF must be independent of government. It must be independent for the community to trust that the provision of financial assistance is given with the utmost integrity and it must be independent to prevent ministerial influence on decisions of the NAIF. We've seen time and again this government seeking to stack agency boards with sympathisers or government employees. We saw it with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and we see it again here. With this fund we are not talking small amounts of taxpayers' money; we are talking billions of dollars, huge sums that will be spent, and we can't allow it to become a government controlled slush fund.

Item 2 will introduce a new section 8A which will ensure that taxpayer money is not used to support risky, loss-making fossil fuel ventures. It's extraordinary considering last year's fires and droughts and this year's historic floods that this government is here today seeking to support gas projects in the Northern Territory through the NAIF. The minister's comments were plain, and that is what these changes are really for. It's reckless and irresponsible in the extreme. Gas is as polluting as coal, and methane, the by-product, is far worse for the atmosphere in the short term. It is also incredibly poor economics. The revenues of the gas industry are being eroded by the continual price deflation in the cost of renewables. The result is fossil fuel majors are destroying their shareholders' wealth and writing down billions in assets. Santos, for example, since 2014 has written down over $8 billion of its assets. Many gas projects have been abandoned, and R&D spending has been downsizing. Oil and gas are in a precarious position caught between a confluence of forces. It's in structural decline. The industry knows this, and the market knows this. That's why they have their hands out for subsidies from sympathetic governments. The answer should be an unequivocal no.

The recent Grattan Institute report Flame out: the future of natural gas said the only rational approach for governments, the energy industry and its customers is to begin planning for a future without natural gas or at least with a substantially reduced role for natural gas. Instead of redirecting funding to fossil fuel projects, the NAIF should be promoting a clean technology vision for northern Australia. Northern Australia has enormous potential to supply the world with energy harnessed from remarkable wind and solar resources. The Sun Cable project and the Asian Renewable Energy Hub are two examples of what is possible. The amendments that I propose will ensure that NAIF funding is directed only towards worthy projects, not fossil fuel projects. The NAIF should remain independent. It should invest only in clean technologies that are actually for the future of northern Australia. Anything else would be money wasted.

I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:25): I and the Greens support these very sensible amendments that have been moved, but it's worth being clear how it is that we got to the point of moving these amendments. The only reason we're debating these amendments moved by the member for Warringah is that Liberal and Labor voted just then to give public money to new gas projects. That's what they just voted for. We have a government fronting up and saying that it wants to take billions of dollars that could be going to schools and hospitals and, instead, use it to fast-track the climate crisis by expanding new gas projects in northern Australia. Liberal and Labor just voted for that. You can't say, 'We're in a climate emergency,' and then turn around and give public money to new gas projects, especially when we know that gas is as dirty as coal and when we know that expanding the Beetaloo Basin project—which is what this government wants to do and, apparently, is Labor wants to do as well—will blow any chance we have of Australia doing its fair share in meeting the Paris goals of limiting global warming to well below two degrees, while still aiming for 1½ degrees.

These amendments are absolutely critical. I think most people in the country would accept that the government doesn't quite get climate change, and most people in the country would accept that the government's not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis. But most people in the country would also be stunned to know that they themselves, the public, are bankrolling big gas corporations with the permission of Liberal and Labor. That's because what has just happened is that they have both voted to say, 'Let's take public money and make it available to big gas corporations.' And do you know what? The big gas corporations just brought in $50 billion in revenue and paid zero dollars tax. So, not only do they pay no tax, but Liberal and Labor say: 'We'll give you handouts. We'll give you money that could be going to bring down the cost of dental care or making public schools genuinely free.' No! Thanks to that vote, this money is now going to big gas corporations, who are going to be building stranded assets, and the public is going to be on the hook for them. We know we've got to get out of coal and gas. We absolutely cannot build any more new coal and gas. We have to get out of it. What we certainly should not do is use public money to make the climate crisis worse.

These amendments are very sensible and they are very critical because they make it plain that this fund cannot be used as a slush fund for the big gas corporations, which is what the government is trying to do. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that the government moved this, because the government is just delivering, and this is payback for the political donations that the big gas corporations have given to the Liberal Party. But it appears that it's payback for the donations that the big gas corporations have given to the Labor Party as well. I urge the opposition to rethink and to support this amendment, so that no public money can go to fossil fuel projects as part of this terrible NAIF slush fund that the government is establishing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being after 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

The SPEAKER (15:15): I present report No. 30 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 22 March 2021 to 25 March 2021.

1. The committee met in private session on Thursday, 25 March 2021.

2. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made—

Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy:

Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (16:16): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (16:18): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (16:19): The question now is that the bill be agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (16:19): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (16:20): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill supports the independent review into the workplaces of parliamentarians and their staff that is led by Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins. The government announced this review on 5 March 2021. Its aim is to ensure that all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful and that our national parliament reflects best practice in the prevention and handling of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The review must bring about cultural and practical change in our parliamentary workplace.

It is of paramount importance that parliamentarians and staff both current and former can freely participate and have their say. This bill will strengthen the confidentiality of information provided to or created by the independent review. It does this in two ways. Firstly, it will exclude a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to all documents provided to or created by the independent review. Secondly, it will provide that these records not come into the open access period under the Archives Act 1983 until 99 years after the year the record comes into existence. These proposed amendments would not prevent the independent review from publishing such information as it considers appropriate. The amendments are intended to encourage individuals to come forward to the independent review and give information that is relevant to its terms of reference. This information could include accounts of a deeply personal and sensitive nature as well as allegations about the conduct of other people.

The bill supports the objectives of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's review. In particular, it will support the review in understanding the experiences and expectations of current and former parliamentarians and staff as well as other staff working within the Parliament of Australia. I thank members for their contribution to this debate and I look forward to hearing their contributions. I commend the bill.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (16:22): On 5 March the government announced that it would appoint the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, to conduct an independent review into the workplaces of parliamentarians and their staff. There is a clear need for such a review, and it has Labor's full support. As set out in the terms of reference, the aim of the review is 'to ensure that all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful, and that our national parliament reflects best practice in the prevention and handling of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assaults'.

If the review is to achieve its aim, it is absolutely critical that as many current and former staff as possible participate. Last week, a bipartisan group of current and former parliamentary staff members and their supporters wrote to the opposition leader and to the Prime Minister expressing their concern about the privacy and confidentiality of submissions made to the review. In particular, they expressed concern that, as the Human Rights Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act, there is currently no guarantee that information submitted to the review will remain private and confidential. Many staff had already raised these concerns with members of the Labor caucus directly. I know that everyone in this place agrees that current and former staff must have confidence that their privacy will be protected if they participate in this review. The review needs to be a safe place for everyone participating in it. This bill is intended to provide that safety, first, by amending the Freedom of Information Act so that submissions to the independent review and any documents created by the review are exempt from the operation of the act, and, second, by amending the Archives Act so that review documents will not be accessible by any member of the public for 99 years.

I acknowledge that a concern has been raised about the scope of these exemptions. In particular there is a concern that the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act could be exploited by government ministers and departments to deny victims and survivors of abuse or harassment access to materials relating to their own complaints. We understand that concern, and Labor has been engaging constructively with the government and members of the crossbench all week in a joint effort to address it, while also ensuring that anyone who wishes to participate in the review can have complete confidence that their privacy and their confidentiality will be protected. It was because of the constructive engagement by Labor, the government and members of the crossbench that the amendment that is going to be moved by the member for Warringah is now in a form that can and should be supported by everyone in this place.

The fact that the bill is going to be amended in the House today means that it cannot pass the parliament until May. While on one level that is regrettable, we note and take comfort in the welcome assurances that have been provided by the Australian Human Rights Commission about the protection of confidential information between now and the May sittings of the parliament. It is Labor's sincere hope that the passage of this bill will ensure that everyone who wishes to participate in the independent review will have the confidence to do so.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (16:27): I rise to support the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. These amendments will ensure that the review conducted by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, is effective and not hampered by the legitimate privacy concerns that have been raised by staff and former staff, victims and survivors.

I wrote to the Prime Minister last Tuesday calling for this legislation. He wrote back to me at the time saying he was supportive of that and requesting that we put forward this legislation, pledging government support. As it is, some procedural changes have altered that but with the same outcome. It's an outcome that we've been after here. I'm very pleased that this legislation will be supported by government members, opposition members and crossbench members. That is a good thing indeed.

Our staff and members of parliament have made it plain from the outset that they welcome the Jenkins review. Indeed, Labor called for this review in a joint media release from myself as Labor leader and Tanya Plibersek as the shadow minister for the status of women on 16 February in response to the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins in the office of the Minister for Defence in 2019 and other issues. This review is an important opportunity to bring about the cultural change that is needed, to get the resources and protections needed, to transform the parliament into a safe workplace. This should be a safe workplace for everyone who works here. As a Labor parliamentarian I say that Labor have a particular special duty to our staff, but I think every member of parliament has a duty to ensure their staff are properly protected.

This review must listen to those who come forward. They should be able to come forward in the confidence that any statements or submissions they make will be confidential, and that they won't be put in a difficult position in a year's time or 10 years time or 20 years time or 30 years time. That is what this legislation is aimed at. The fact is every workplace in Australia should be safe—every recreational venue, every home. We know, thanks to the courage of people like Brittany Higgins and the thousands of women and men who marched last week, that this workplace isn't the safe workplace it should be.

Debate interrupted.

Mr ALBANESE ( Grayndler — Leader of the Opposition ) ( 16:30 ): We know that concerns have been raised across the parliament. We know that these issues are issues outside the parliament in our entire society. We need to ensure, in terms of this debate, that this workplace is seen as best practice, not as it has been seen in the past couple of weeks.

As set out in the terms of reference:

The aim of the Review is to ensure all Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful and that our national Parliament reflects best practice in the prevention and handling of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

That's why it is vital that as many current and former staff as possible are able to participate.

There have been brave women who have chosen to tell their stories to drive change and I acknowledge that bravery. We have heard though from many staff directly and through their unions, or through voluntary supporters and advocates, that some do not feel safe to come forward unless they have these guarantees of confidentiality and privacy beyond those provided by the ordinary processes of the Human Rights Commission. Concerns have been raised by staff and former staff from all parties that as the Human Rights Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act there is currently, without this legislation, no guarantee that information submitted to the review will remain private. That's why this legislation is so important and that's why I wrote to the Prime Minister last Tuesday. More recently, a bipartisan group of current and former federal parliamentary staff members and their supporters wrote to the Prime Minister and to myself expressing those same concerns. The bill is the product of negotiations across this parliament and it delivers the protection that staff deserve.

Can I say, in terms of outcomes, one of the things I've said publicly, and I say it here as well, is that where there have been issues we have successfully set-up independent organisations, such as IPEA to look at the entitlements for members of parliament and their offices, and that has been a success. We've established the Parliamentary Budget Office to bring integrity to commitments that are given during election campaigns.It seems to me that a model of an independent body, whereby people could safely go and make confidential submissions, a place where complaints could be made and dealt with in a confidential way, at arm's length from the current system—that clearly is compromised, because the MOP(S) Act means that often there are relationships related to the political process between members of parliament, ministers and their staff. That's just a fact. Therefore, I really hope, and I have confidence that in examining these matters Kate Jenkins will come up with proposals that do give more confidence and in future will ensure that people can have somewhere to go that is separate from the sorts of debates that we've had in recent days about, for example, what staff in the Prime Minister's office or other offices, as well as MPs, know.

I do want to pay tribute to our caucus chair, who's here, the member for Newcastle; the shadow minister, the member for Sydney; and others, particularly the women in our caucus, who have shown incredible leadership and have come forward and worked so hard on developing a framework for the Labor Party of an updated code of conduct, a sexual harassment policy, a bullying policy and a complaints process. That was unanimously adopted by the ALP national executive on 26 February. That process also could be looked at in terms of being a model. We'll continue to work on it. You never get these things right.

Essentially a lot of these issues arise from the power imbalance in society related to the fact that patriarchy exists in our society. We want to ensure that there's full equality. At the moment there's not. The party caucus I joined in 1996 was far less reflective of Australian society than the current one is. I look around at the people. Not only is gender important but religious background, ethnicity and First Nations people being represented in far greater numbers are as well.

We strongly support this bill. We'll support the amendment that will be moved. The Jenkins review offers a chance for generational cultural change. Let's not waste it.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:36): I will make a few brief remarks because the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 has been addressed at length in the Senate. This bill relates to the current inquiry by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner into the culture and the procedures that are in place in Parliament House to ensure that everyone has a safe workplace. That review is something the Greens welcome and have, in fact, been calling for for months. We're very pleased that over recent times others have added their voices to that call and now, finally, the Prime Minister has done it.

The legislation came about because a number of people expressed concerns and wanted to make sure that any submissions they made to that review remained confidential. That was a concern that the Greens listened to and so, sometime ago, our leader in the Senate, Senator Larissa Waters—she is also our spokesperson for women—raised this with the government and in other forums to make sure that that concern was addressed. In that respect the legislation does something important—it gives women in particular the confidence to come forward to this review. We certainly encourage them to do so.

Some additional concerns were raised about whether the drafting allows the government to do other things—not so much protect the privacy of the people who wanted to put information to the review but provide a shield for the government to hide other documents. In that respect concerns were raised, and we listened to those as well. I commend the member for Warringah for the amendment she will move, which the Greens will support here. Again, I want to place on record acknowledgement of the significant work done by Senator Larissa Waters, who has also been involved in discussions with the member for Warringah, the government and the opposition about this amendment.

Because we're reaching the end of the day on the last sitting day and it's important that this bill passes, I'll leave my comments there other than to say that this review is something that the Greens have been calling for for months and months. I'm very pleased it's happening. We urge everyone to participate in it. This parliament deserves to be a safe workplace, and one of the ways that we can make that happen is by having full participation in this review and implementing the recommendations that come out of it—hopefully, not after waiting a year but quickly. That's something the Greens will be committed to.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (16:39): I have a few brief points on the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. I want to reflect on the genesis of this important bill and the independent inquiry it supports.

As the past month unfolded, the crossbench and opposition called on the government to launch this particular inquiry. Of course, there are multiple inquiries on the books right now, including the unsatisfactory Gaetjens review, which is being held at arm's length from the PMO and has been paused indefinitely. It was obvious to me and to many others in this House from the outset that inquiries of this nature must be fully independent and conducted by someone with appropriate expertise. Kate Jenkins is that person, and I really welcome this review. Of course, it doesn't take a review to know the basics and the reasons for why we need this review. We certainly don't need to wait for this review; it is complete before we act and legislate—something that I was concerned to hear the Prime Minister suggest in question time yesterday.

What do we know already? We know that there's a toxic culture here in parliament. We know that there is no safe and independent place for MPs and their staff to go to with serious complaints in this place. We know that the government sat on Kate Jenkins' previous Respect@work report recommendations for over a year and we know that the government could have passed a bill I introduced last October to establish an independent parliamentary standards commissioner and a code of conduct. We know that the government could have passed the bill that the member for Warringah introduced last week to amend the sex discrimination laws so that they apply to all of us in this chamber. No other workplace in this country would take so long to act.

But this bill is about ensuring that victims can come safely to this inquiry. Their privacy must be protected at all costs and I think we all agree on that. I want to thank the member for Warringah for her tireless work this week to ensure that this bill has the appropriate confidentiality safeguards. Her amendments are really important, I support them and I commend this bill to the House.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:42): It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak on the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. It's been an extraordinarily difficult few weeks in this House. I think that all of us here would share that view, and that the sooner the independent review of workplaces of parliamentarians and their staff gets underway the better.

But in all the conversations I've had with staff members in this building—Labor staff, mostly, given that I'm a Labor member—it was made abundantly clear from day one, even before this Jenkins review was announced, that we needed an independent and at-arm's-length review process and that nothing less would suffice. More importantly, staff had to be 100 per cent confident in the process of making a submission to the review that their privacy would be protected. They made very clear to me in all of the consultations I've had over many months now—and I was talking about these issues well before the review was announced—that they had zero trust in current reporting systems in this parliament.

It makes me incredibly sad that that's the case, that there's such a lack of confidence in the current systems and such a feeling of lack of protection. So it's absolutely vital that the Jenkins review provides assurances to staff, that they will have their privacy protected. That meant not being subject to freedom-of-information laws, as would ordinarily be the case at the Australian Human Rights Commission. It also meant amendments to the Archives Act to provide the kinds of protections that we've seen in royal commissions—certainly in royal commissions dealing with sensitive issues. This is now a gold standard, the 99-year suppression in the Archives Act. I welcome very much those changes.

There were concerns raised. It is a bizarre scenario that we would have to ask a government not to operate in bad faith but that is exactly what people were demanding—some assurances that there wouldn't be efforts made, for those people with existing complaints that predated this announcement of the review, by the government being sneaky and tricky and trying to bury what would have been otherwise discoverable documents and information in the process. I am not actually suggesting that that would have been on government's cards but, clearly, even having just that window of doubt in peoples' minds was enough to jeopardise this important independent review process. So being able to arrive at a place where we can provide that assurance to people that there will not be capacity to be dumping in documents, important evidence and information that would suddenly now be deemed non-discoverable for those people with existing complaints who understandably wish to pursue justice and seek redress. They should have absolutely every opportunity to do so.

It is critical that women in this place feel safe about coming to work. The Australian parliament, I have said this on many occasions now, must be a model employer. But it's not just Labor staff, Liberal staff, crossbench staff. We need to be providing safe workplaces for the cleaners who come into this building, for the men and women from nongovernment organisations who come to lobby for a better, fairer deal out of this place, all the contractors. Everybody should be guaranteed safety in this place. There are 5,000 people who work in this building and every one of them deserve to come to work every day feeling safe. If this review helps us get to that path—I agree with earlier comments—we should not be waiting 12 months for this review to be concluded in order to make changes.

I think the government need only pick up Ms Jenkins' earlier review, Respect@Work, and enact those 55 recommendations. We might be in a very different position today in 2021 had we insisted that the government enact those recommendations. I look forward to a great sense of urgency from this government in making sure that every one of those recommendations is enacted in full, adequately resourced and properly supported to do so.

I want to say thank you to the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, for his extraordinary and ongoing commitment to ensuring that this process was going to be survivor-focused, that it would be a practice that would be trauma-informed. He had the full support of the member for Sydney, the shadow minister for women, and Senator Katy Gallagher and Senator Don Farrell from the other place, who were part of an important negotiating team with the government to ensure that our staff are afforded every protection they deserve and so rightfully have fought very hard to ensure that they are received.

It is an important process and it is worth this parliament backing in. Indeed, the only regret is it will have to wait for May to get passed. But I understand we have every assurance from government and all members of this party that these provisions, these protections, these tight assurances, will be applied retrospectively to 5 March, when the government announced the appointment of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins for this review.

So, I want to say to all members of staff, to all people who interact with this building as a workplace and indeed our other Commonwealth and electorate offices beyond, that I encourage you to participate in this review. This review is an important historical moment, I believe, but that requires that people are able to make forthright contributions, free of any suggestion that there would be any kind of punishment or retribution or that they would have their names leaked in any way, shape or form. I think these amendments go to addressing those concerns, and that's why I'm very pleased to speak tonight in support of them and commend the bill to the House. Thank you very much.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (16:51): I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 29), after subsection 7(2DA), insert:

(2DB) A Minister and an agency other than the Australian Human Rights Commission are not exempt under subsection (2DA)(a) from the operation of this Act in relation to documents created for purposes other than the Independent Review to which a right of access otherwise exists or existed under the Act.

The review is a very, very important step to build an understanding of the culture of the parliamentary workplaces, with the aim of building a safe and respectful workplace in which all staff have access to clear and effective mechanisms to prevent and address bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The review will consider recommendations to ensure that the people who work in parliamentary workplaces are treated with dignity and respect and have access to clear and effective mechanisms to prevent and address bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. It is so important to give assurance of confidentiality of information given to the independent review into the workplaces of parliamentarians and their staff conducted by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner by making amendments to the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act, which this bill does.

It's an incredibly significant inquiry, and it is vital that we get these protections right in order to ensure the confidence of witnesses. That is why this amendment is proposed now. Many potential witnesses in the inquiry have contacted me personally highlighting their concerns. They've also been contacting other women on the crossbench, and I thank those women for their courage and determination to be heard. I thank my colleagues for their engagement with these women and their cooperation.

The amendment moved is to reflect the concerns identified in relation to the bill as it passed the other place. The women who contacted me are from a range of backgrounds, but all ultimately are aware of the culture of this place. They are acutely politically aware and highly sensitive to the potential for deceit as a result of past experience. These women were concerned that, unamended, the bill had a potential overreach and would prevent them from accessing historical documents that they would otherwise be entitled to under existing freedom-of-information legislation. The amendment that I have moved today clarifies that the exemption from freedom-of-information requests extends only to documents for the purpose of independent review. The original documents contained within the departments and ministerial offices are not exempt from freedom of information. Whilst this amendment means that this bill will be passed when it returns to the Senate in May, I welcome the reassurance from Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and her confirmation that this will not delay or impact the progress of the independent review. This is very important in order for all potential participants to have confidence and to be reassured.

Thank you to all my crossbench colleagues and the opposition for coming together to support this bill and this important amendment. Thank you to the government for listening to the concerns raised, especially to Minister Birmingham, and for our discussions and collaborative approach to this amendment. Finally, thank you to the many individuals who have raised this issue and who have contacted me directly to highlight their concerns and the importance of getting this right. We must have a situation of an inquiry where all submissions will be held in the utmost confidence, where individuals can share their often very painful stories and experiences but do not see an erosion of their existing rights when it comes to any other remedies or actions they may wish to take. I sincerely hope that many people will participate in the independent review to ensure that we have a thorough and meaningful review and that meaningful change can occur from this.

Mr JOYCE (New England) (16:55): I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Warringah but I also want to state that I was humbled to be approached by a number of people requesting this amendment as well. The reason they gave is that cases that might be on foot could be impeded by reason that they would have things delivered in bulk, or pertinent documents that they wished to FOI but wouldn't be able to FOI, and, therefore, they wouldn't be able to pursue their case. I have been assured by some of those same people as recently as around half past three this afternoon that the amendment that has been drafted by the member for Warringah does that. There were some concerns in relation to whether documents could be dropped in bulk to the Human Rights Commission to serve the same purpose, but I am assured that that is not the case.

I acknowledge that some might see this as some 'road from perdition' for me. To that, I reinforce how humbled I was to be approached by a number of people who, for whatever reason, wished me to do my part. I would like to thank the minister. I had a meeting with the minister this morning on this issue, and I want to acknowledge the agreement and the attitude of Minister Dutton in trying to make sure that we resolved this issue. Without any further delay, I would also like to commend this amendment.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (16:58): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.