Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am introducing the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021.

Affordable and accessible child care supports social and early learning outcomes for children, and helps families to participate in the workforce.

This bill implements the government's changes to the childcare subsidy announced in the 2021-22 budget, building on the success of the government's Child Care Package implemented in July 2018.

Three years on, our childcare system continues to deliver a single childcare subsidy for all families in Australia, with higher subsidies to those that earn the least and no subsidies for those earning more than around $353,000.

The hourly fee cap introduced in 2018 continues to keep downward pressure on fees.

These changes will maintain the integrity of the existing childcare subsidy, ensuring the reduction of out-of-pocket childcare expenses for families and targeting additional support for those families who currently pay the most—those with multiple children aged under six.

It is anticipated that the changes will add up to 300,000 hours of work per week, or the equivalent of around 40,000 parents who will be able to work an extra day per week. It will boost GDP by up to $1.5 billion per year.

Strong participation in the labour market has never been more critical than it is now, as Australia moves into the recovery phase of our COVID-19 pandemic response.

Thanks to our strong economy, women's workforce participation reached an all-time high of 61.8 per cent in March 2021.

The first element of this bill removes the annual cap of $10,560 for all families earning over $189,390 from 1 July 2022 so that no family has an annual cap on childcare subsidies.

Removing the annual cap ensures families maximise the extra benefit generated by the increased subsidy. Removing the annual cap also means we will remove a structural disincentive to take on additional days of work for many families. This will encourage parents, especially second income earners who are more often women, to get back to work or to work more.

The second element in the bill will increase the maximum subsidy rate for second and subsequent children where a family has more than one child under six, from 11 July 2022.

Under this element, families will receive an increased subsidy of 30 percentage points, up to a maximum subsidy rate of 95 per cent, for second and subsequent children aged under six accessing childcare.

This ensures support for the families who need it most and who face the biggest barriers to participation in the labour market—those with multiple young children in care at the same time.

It also ensures that families on the lowest incomes, who may already be close to the generous maximum subsidy, benefit from these changes and continue to receive the highest rate of subsidy.

These changes will benefit around 250,000 families in Australia each year.

Around 50 per cent of families who benefit from the measure (those earning less than around $130,000) will receive the maximum 95 per cent subsidy for their second and subsequent children. These families will pay on average $21 a day for two children in child care.

Around 95 per cent of families who benefit from the measure (those earning less than around $250,000) will receive a subsidy of at least 80 per cent for their second and subsequent children (paying on average $73 a day or less for two children in child care).

Taken together, these changes will put more money in the hands of Australian families, especially those who need it most, while also maintaining parental co-contribution, which also helps to keep downwards pressure on childcare fees. Our activity test remains in place to ensure families must be undertaking activity, such as working, training or studying, to be eligible for childcare subsidies. These are core principles of the government's childcare subsidy.

Implementation of these changes will require changes to the system administering the childcare subsidy, including complex IT and other system build alterations.

The government is working to implement this across two phases. A two-phased approach will ensure Services Australia has time to complete the necessary system build to give effect to the government's commitment without jeopardising implementation at the earliest possible date.

It is anticipated we will be able commence implementation by July 2022. Should it be possible to bring the commencement of the measure forward, we will do this so that families can benefit sooner. That is why the bill makes it possible for earlier implementation, with the date to be set by proclamation.

We are working hard to make sure this investment puts more money in the pockets of everyday Australian families as soon as possible.

I commend this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The 2021-22 budget includes a measure to implement an updated cost-recovery model for registration charges for the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, known as CRICOS, which are collected by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. The new arrangements will reduce the amount paid by providers to the department by approximately $7 million per year.

Delivering the model requires amendments in four separate bills:

the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021 (bill) will amend the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997 (Registration Charges Act);

the ESOS Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021 will amend the Education Services forOverseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act);

the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2021 will amend the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012; and

the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021 will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Act 2021.

This bill outlines the proposed changes to charges payable by providers registering, or intending to be registered on CRICOS to deliver education and training services to overseas students. The amendments will result in a significant reduction in the department's collection of CRICOS charges from the international education sector.

The updated cost recovery model reflects the department's costs of administering and regulating CRICOS providers in accordance with the Australian Government Charging Framework(the Charging Framework). The key focus of the Charging Framework is to ensure that the cost of the regulation being provided should be borne by the entity, rather than those costs being met by taxpayers.

In addition to the department, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) also have roles in regulating CRICOS registered providers. These regulators are known as ESOS agencies. ASQA is the ESOS agency for registered vocational education and training providers and standalone English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students providers. TEQSA is the ESOS agency for registered higher education providers, and the secretary of the department is the ESOS agency for school providers.

From 1 January 2022, only the costs of the department's CRICOS regulatory effort will be recovered through the Registration Charges Act. ASQA and TEQSA will separately charge under their own legislative frameworks, ensuring clear lines of transparency and accountability between charging and regulatory practice.

This also protects providers from double charging and ensures the department, ASQA and TEQSA are all properly resourced to fulfil their ongoing compliance, analysis and monitoring obligations so that the quality and integrity of Australia's international education and training system is maintained.

Subject to the passage of this bill, the new charging arrangements will commence from 1 January 2022.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill outlines the amendments that need to be made to the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012 as a result of amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997.

The bill will add a definition of 'total enrolments' to the act which is needed when calculating Tuition Protection Service levies, and because the existing definition will be repealed by the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021. The definition will include clarification that an enrolment will be included in the calculation for the TPS levy when a student has an enrolment in a course and has also undertaken study in the relevant period.

Subject to the passage of this bill and the registration charges bill, the new charging arrangements will commence from 1 January 2022.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021 outlines the amendments that need to be made to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 to ensure consistency with the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997, particularly to require registered providers to be in good standing with all Education Services for Overseas Students agencies in regard to their Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students fees and charges.

It clarifies the monitoring powers of ESOS agencies by making it explicit that these agencies are able to undertake the function of a compliance audit.

This bill will also amend the ESOS Act to make the CRICOS annual registration charge payable within a 30-day period and to allow flexibility in the timing of annual charges if necessary, should unforeseen circumstances arise.

Subject to the passage of this bill and the registration charges bill, the new charging arrangements will commence from 1 January 2022.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021 will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Act 2021to correctly refer to the charges to be established under the proposed amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (09:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 increases the producer offset for films that are not feature films released in cinemas to 30 per cent of total qualifying Australian production expenditure, and to make various threshold and integrity amendments across the three screen tax offsets.

This will ensure the Australian Screen Production Incentive tax offsets effectively target areas that require support and encourage production and commercial distribution of quality Australian screen content in a digital environment.

The changes will also encourage the creation of productions that can compete on a global stage and unlock export opportunities.

Schedule 2 to the bill makes amendments in relation to small business insolvency. The main small business insolvency reforms, which came into effect on 1 January 2021, introduced new insolvency processes suitable for small businesses, reducing complexity for them, and time and costs. These processes enable more Australian small businesses to quickly restructure. Where restructure is not possible, businesses are now able to wind up faster, enabling greater returns for creditors and employees.

This bill makes some consequential amendments which will support the operation of these new insolvency processes.

Finally, schedule 3 to the bill contains a number of amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure that Treasury laws continue to operate as intended. The amendments clarify legislation to ensure it operates in accordance with policy intent, make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences, and correct technical or drafting defects.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (10:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will empower the Financial Services and Credit Panel within ASIC as the single disciplinary body for financial advisers. The panel will be provided with new sanction powers to enable it to fully perform its disciplinary functions, including being able to issue an infringement notice, require that the financial adviser undertake additional training and recommend to ASIC that it seek a civil penalty. The bill will also require all financial advisers who provide personal financial advice to retail clients to be registered.

This fulfils the government's commitment to implement recommendation 2.10 of the financial services royal commission. The royal commission highlighted that the financial advice industry lacked an effective system of professional discipline, as a result of there being too many different pathways for consumer complaints and ineffective sanctions to deal with misconduct appropriately. In addition, while sanctions are available to ASIC, the lack of less serious sanctions means that ASIC generally only focuses on the most serious incidents.

The bill will also provide that tax (financial) advisers will no longer be regulated by the Tax Practitioners Board but instead be regulated only under the Corporations Act 2001. This implements recommendation 7.1 of the Tax Practitioners Board review, which recommended that a new model be developed for regulating tax (financial) advisers in alignment with implementing recommendation 2.10 of the royal commission.

Importantly, the bill also winds up the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority and transfers its functions to the minister responsible for the Corporations Act 2001 and ASIC.

These reforms will further streamline the number of bodies involved in the oversight of financial advisers, resulting in continuous improvements to the regulatory framework for the financial advice sector and enhanced access for Australians to affordable and quality financial advice.

Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and has approved it as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (10:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill gives effect to the measure announced in the 2021-22 budget to provide a consistent four-year newly arrived resident's waiting period across welfare payments and concession cards.

The newly arrived resident's waiting period is a longstanding feature of our welfare payments system, which is non-contributory and residentiary based. It reflects the reasonable expectation that skilled and family migrants who choose to come to or remain in Australia will take steps to provide for their own financial support when they first become permanent residents.

Currently, the length of the waiting period varies from one to four years, depending on the payment.

A four-year waiting period already applies to working age payments, such as JobSeeker payment, parenting payment and youth allowance, as well as concession cards.

A two-year waiting period currently applies to carer payment, parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay, while a one-year waiting period applies to carer allowance and family tax benefit part A, with no waiting period for family tax benefit part B.

This bill will standardise the waiting period for new permanent residents across these payments. It will also ensure the existing four-year waiting period for concession cards applies equally to permanent visa holders and relevant temporary visa holders.

Applying the same uniform four-year waiting period across most payments and concession cards will ensure a consistent approach to access to income support and family assistance for new migrants.

Some family payments, including double orphan pension and stillborn baby payment, will continue to be available without a waiting period. This reflects the particular circumstances in which these payments are made and ensures migrants who have experienced the tragedy of stillbirth or are caring for a child who has lost both of their parents still have access to financial support to help them meet unforeseen costs.

Migrant families will also continue to have immediate access to childcare subsidies where they are using approved child care and participating in work, study or other approved activities. This recognises the important role child care plays in facilitating parents' engagement in the labour force.

In addition, to ensure that low-income families can access concessional benefits under Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, families serving a waiting period for family tax benefit will continue to have access to the low-income healthcare card where otherwise eligible.

All new permanent migrants, including those with children or other caring responsibilities, will continue to have access to other services and supports where eligible. This includes Medicare, schools, tertiary education, employment services, settlement services, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, child care and carer supports through the Carer Gateway.

The changes in this bill will only apply to people granted a permanent visa or relevant temporary visa on or after 1 January 2022.

Migrants already granted permanent residency or a relevant temporary visa before 1 January 2022 will not be affected by the changes in this bill. Migrants granted their visa before this date will be subject to the rules that applied when their visa was granted.

Orphan and remaining relative visa holders will also not be affected by the changes in this bill. This recognises that these visa holders are often vulnerable young people and is consistent with the approach taken as part of the 2019 changes. These visa holders will remain covered by the pre-2019 rules, irrespective of when their visa is granted.

In addition, New Zealand citizens on special category visas will not be affected by the changes to the waiting period for family payments. They will continue to have no waiting periods for family tax benefit, parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay. This recognises the unique visa and payment settings that apply to New Zealanders.

Importantly, the government is maintaining all existing exemptions from the waiting period. These exemptions are designed to provide safeguards for certain groups of migrants, including potentially vulnerable individuals and families, and people who have had a substantial change of circumstances.

Permanent humanitarian entrants and their families will continue to be exempt from waiting periods for all payments and concession cards.

This exemption acknowledges that refugees settling here under the Humanitarian Program are particularly vulnerable. They generally have no other means of support and are not usually in a position to make plans for their own support prior to applying for, and being granted, a humanitarian visa.

Maintaining access to welfare payments will help to promote the successful long-term settlement of these humanitarian entrants and their families.

While most temporary visa holders do not have access to Australian payments, holders of certain temporary humanitarian visas, including temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas, can access special benefit and family payments and are exempt from the waiting period for these payments. This will continue to be the case under this legislation.

Carer visa holders who have come to Australia to care for an Australian resident with no other care options will continue to be exempt from the waiting period for carer payment and carer allowance. This will ensure that they, and the Australian resident they are caring for, can receive appropriate support.

Most other permanent skilled or family migrants—those who have come to Australia to work or be with family—are well placed to be self-reliant during their four-year waiting period. However, the government understands that some migrants may experience a change of circumstances, which means they are no longer able to support themselves as they had originally planned. For this reason, there are key exemptions for migrants in this situation.

Migrants who become a lone parent after becoming an Australian resident will continue to be exempt from the waiting period for the principal carer parent payments: parenting payment, JobSeeker payment and youth allowance. Parents granted this exemption will also continue to be exempt from the waiting period for carer allowance and family payments. This ensures that parents who no longer have the support, financial and otherwise, of their partner can access support for themselves and their children.

Other migrants who experience a substantial change of circumstances, such as illness, injury, job loss or family and domestic violence, will continue to be exempt from the waiting period for special benefit. This payment provides a safety net for people in hardship who are not otherwise eligible for other payments. Those who receive this exemption for special benefit will also continue to be exempt from the waiting period for carer allowance and family payments.

Together, these exemptions will continue to provide a comprehensive safety net for migrants who are particularly vulnerable as well as those who are placed in hardship because of circumstances beyond their control.

Conclusion

This government believes it is reasonable to expect that people seeking to come to Australia through the skilled and family visa streams should make arrangements to be financially self-sufficient when they first settle here permanently.

The changes contained in this bill to apply a uniform, consistent four-year waiting period across all relevant payments strikes a balance between encouraging migrants to be self-sufficient and maintaining appropriate safeguards.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:13): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I present the committee's Report on the inquiry into aspects of petitioning security and accessibility, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

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

Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (10:13): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report of the inquiry on the future conduct of elections operating during times of emergency situations.

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

Mr CONAGHAN: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (10:13): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (10:14): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Australia's response to the coup in Myanmar: interim report for the inquiry into certain aspects of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade annual report 2019-20.

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

Mr SHARMA: by leave—Myanmar's military coup of 1 February 2021 has been a tragedy for that nation and its people. More than 850 people have died in the army's brutal crackdown. Many more have been injured by the army's unlawful use of violence against peaceful protesters and those engaged in civil disobedience. Over 6,000 people have been arbitrarily arrested and detained, and the economy is contracting and shortages of basic goods have begun to appear. Cash is in short supply. Confidence in the banking system is low. Myanmar's currency, the kyat, has depreciated by 17 per cent since the coup and growing international pressure has prompted major multinationals such as Japanese giant Kirin Holdings to divest from some of the main military owned enterprises, including Myanmar Economic Corporation and Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited. Woodside Petroleum, an Australian company, has put its operations in Myanmar on hold, and I expect other international firms are likely to follow.

With high import dependence and demand for foreign capital, prolonged political instability and investor uncertainty is likely to cause the economy to contract and deteriorate further in coming months. This means that the significant economic and development gains that Myanmar has made in the past decade under a period of largely peaceful civilian and democratic rule are being almost entirely reversed by the developments of only the past five months.

Internal instability and the prospect of a full-blown civil war in Myanmar are on the rise. Protesters who previously engaged in passive disobedience and peaceful protest are increasingly taking up arms. In cities, underground operatives are targeting and killing officials in the military government. In the countryside, newly formed militias are attacking army units and army outposts. According to Radio Free Asia, more than 300 bombs have exploded in police stations, state owned banks and government offices since February, and there are signs now of growing coordination between these newly formed rebel groups and the longstanding ethnic armed groups, which have long been a presence on Myanmar's border and in Myanmar's border regions.

Myanmar's rapid downward spiral should be of alarm not only to those of us here in Australia but also to the region. The prospect of a failed state gripped by civil war in the heart of the Indo-Pacific is an alarming one indeed. We do not want another Syria at the heart of Asia. The Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee heard from a number of experts, groups, organisations and representatives of the Myanmar diaspora community, who brought valuable expertise and advice to bear on what is a complicated and challenging issue. We are very appreciative, as a committee, for the perspectives and expertise they offered, and I wish to place on record here our appreciation for the many submissions and the correspondence we received and our gratitude to those who appeared before the committee in person.

The report I table here today makes a number of recommendations to the government about our response to the Myanmar crisis and how we can positively influence developments there. It remains mindful, however, that the influence of outside actors within Myanmar is limited, especially with respect to the Tatmadaw, the military rulers within Myanmar, and that neighbouring countries and regional bodies, most particularly ASEAN, offer the best prospects for success. For this reason, the report recommends that Australia continue to liaise closely with ASEAN and find ways to support and encourage ASEAN efforts to restore civilian rule in Myanmar, including through the implementation of ASEAN's five-point consensus on Myanmar.

The committee support the suspension of Australia's defence cooperation program with Myanmar and its imposition of an arms embargo. It also urges Australia to contribute actively to growing international support for a global arms embargo on Myanmar, as reflected in the passage of the resolution through the UN General Assembly last Friday. The committee also recommends that Australia reconsider the issue of the imposition of targeted autonomous sanctions against a number of senior figures within the Tatmadaw, that we continue our development assistance program, but that we make sure that it's channelled through nongovernment partners and reaches civil society and supports basic humanitarian needs, and, furthermore, that the prospects of a pathway to permanent residency for the large number of Myanmar nationals who are now here in Australia and rightfully fearful of returning be explored.

I want to thank other members of the committee, including my deputy chair, for the constructive attitude they took. I also want to thank and place on the record here my thanks and appreciation to the secretariat for pulling together witnesses' expert testimony and the report at short notice. I commend this report to the House.

Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:19): by leave—I might just build on the comments made by the member for Wentworth. I couldn't disagree with anything he said. I also extend my thanks to the submitters, to the chair and government members but also to the secretariat. This was a bit of an innovation in how we go about these kinds of inquiries. Instead of calling for submissions and cogitating on them for about a year, we used the annual report power to have a look at something that was fast moving. I think it was a good exercise to give voice to people in the community, as well as experts, former ambassadors and so on who had a lot of valuable contributions, under the cover of parliamentary privilege. I think that was a good use of the committee's time and powers.

It's pleasing that the report has been adopted, I think by all members, with strong support, and it clearly condemns the unconstitutional coup. Society in Myanmar has all but stopped functioning in any normal way, and there are, as the previous speaker outlined, great fears for the country. Some said that the country is at risk of civil war. As others pointed out, there has been a civil war in Myanmar for decades. But what they really mean by that is the risk of this breaking out into full-scale urban conflict causing a destabilised region and, indeed, a failed state scenario is the worst possible outcome.

This is not remote or academic to Australia, not just because of our regional interests but because we have, of course, in every state and territory in the country Burmese/Myanmarese diaspora communities who have family and friends in and direct connections back to that country and, of course, we've invested a lot in recent years in trying to help the country as it moves on to what we saw as a more positive trajectory. The recommendations have been outlined. We do support them.

I do want to turn my remarks, though, to the additional comments in the report, building on what the chair has said. These were comments signed by all Labor members of the committee, and I do commend the chair on the honesty of the report, in that the report reflected the evidence we heard—brutal as it was at times. The overarching message that was heard by the committee, as you can see in the report, was enormous community frustration regarding the government's slow, reactive and inadequate response to the coup and resulting crisis in Myanmar. There's been no sense of urgency at any time from Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister, despite the seriousness of the situation, and the evidence was consistent and strong that the government has at every step been far too slow to act—just reactive.

In March, Minister Payne told the Senate that sanctions were being considered. In April, at the first public hearing, DFAT told us that sanctions were being considered. Then, at the May public hearing, DFAT advised that after three months of inaction the minister finally decided not to implement sanctions. I commend the committee and the government members for the recommendation that said this needs to be reconsidered. We need to look at this further. The government needs to reconsider the imposition of appropriately targeted sanctions, not just, as Labor has already called for, against key figures behind the coup and the Tatmadaw but, as the report said, against significant Tatmadaw-linked commercial entities. It's really important that other countries look at the multibillion-dollar conglomerates that funnel cash to the regime.

In the first public hearing in April, more than two months after the coup, it was astounding to hear that the government had had no contact at all with the diaspora communities or the democratically elected representatives of the legislature, the CRPH—or, indeed, the National Unity Government by that point—and that there was no advice for Myanmarese citizens resident in Australia. It was only after public pressure—public shaming, in effect, through the committee's public hearings—that DFAT then turned up at the second public hearing months later and claimed they'd made contact with diaspora communities and the CRPH. Now, diaspora groups have told Labor MPs that they know of no-one that's been spoken to by DFAT—no group, no individual—which does raise questions of how genuine and widespread the government's stakeholder engagement effort actually is. It did feel like they'd panicked a bit; they'd been sprung bad and they were having a crack to cover themselves.

It also took months for the home affairs department to provide any advice to Myanmarese citizens regarding visa extensions, yet still there's no firm, reliable commitment that no-one will be forced to return to Myanmar and that the people who can't safely return will be able to stay and build a life in Australia if they wish. I welcome the recommendation that we need to look at pathways to permanency, not just temporary protection.

My final comments would be that the government's slowness to act sends precisely the wrong message to the brave people of Myanmar, the region and democracies around the world. This slowness to act is just like the government's ongoing failure to introduce legislation to enable Magnitsky-style sanctions, dropped into the black hole that is the foreign minister's office. The government has to be proactive, not reactive, in delivering for Australia's interests in the region, and that includes substantive support for democratic values, freedoms and human rights. We can't just say these things; we actually have to be on the front foot and do stuff. The government must do more than just react to committee hearings or public pressure.

In closing, I'll say Australia needs to stand up for our values, human rights and democracy by supporting ASEAN and international efforts as well as taking our own independent actions where they're warranted. It's important that we stand up for our values, we support multilateralism and we work with the region, but we can also act independently in accordance with our values. These two things are not mutually exclusive, as the minister seems to think. I also commend the report to the House and hope that the minister pays some regard to it.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (10:25): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (10:25): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (10:25): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report entitled Report on the review of the re-listing of Hizballah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code.

Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:26): I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021 and 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 notes that after eight years this Government has yet to deliver any reforms to Australia's waste sector that have resulted in clear improvement to the health of our environment or significant progress towards a circular economy".

Labor supports this bill. It makes changes to our domestic law that are a necessary consequence of our participation in the Basel Convention, whose purpose is to control the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous waste. As a signatory to the convention, Australia is required to implement changes made to the agreement, which, of course, occur through a process in which we participate, and all such changes aim to strengthen the way that dangerous waste is regulated, especially in relation to its movement between countries. What is significant about these changes is that, for the first time, they extend controls to cover unsorted plastic waste and plastic waste that contains hazardous substances. It's taken us a long time, as a global community—and in Australia it's taken us too long—to start acting to address the scourge of plastic waste. While the changes in this bill make little practical difference to the way that plastic waste is controlled in Australia, especially now that countries have moved to reject the importation of low-quality mixed plastics and we've moved to ban its export as a result, it is important nevertheless that we properly meet our international obligations.

On average, Australia exports just over 60,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per year, most of it in the form of lead-acid batteries and metal scrap. This is regulated to make sure the environmental outcomes are appropriate and acceptable. The fact that the movement of hazardous waste to and from Australia is comparatively small shouldn't obscure the gravity of this issue and the value of our active participation, indeed our leadership, in this space. Incidents, when they occur, can have a severe, widespread and lasting impact on human and environmental health, and often the impact of such disasters will affect several nations and disparate ecosystems. Just as an example, last month a vessel travelling from India to Singapore caught fire due to a leakage of nitric acid used in manufacturing fertilisers. On board the ship were 26 tonnes of plastic pellets that unfortunately entered the marine environment, eventually littering beaches across the shoreline. Other materials lost overboard included caustic soda, lubricating oils, aluminium by-products, polyethylene, cosmetics and even food items. Local fisheries in the immediate area have been ruined as a result, and the broader environmental impacts, which cannot yet be calculated, are likely to be horrendous.

I note that in addition to its central focus on plastic, the bill achieves some worthwhile tidying up via the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act to adopt some standardised powers and other forms of best-practice regulation. The bill also improves information sharing between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, and introduces new record-keeping requirements. Both these changes are welcome.

I do want to raise an issue with the way that the government has staged our progress towards these new regulatory settings, both in the case of this bill and of course in regard to the export ban legislation that we dealt with at the end of 2020. I am sympathetic to the concern expressed by those in the waste and resource management sector, who are dealing with a series of changes, each of which comes with new administrative arrangements and requirements. The details and administrative arrangements themselves generally turned up pretty late in the piece. For a government that makes a lot of noise about red tape, and often lectures those of us on this side of the chamber about it, it certainly would have been better to have got some of this done earlier and more clearly.

In the course of the Senate inquiry into this bill, some industry stakeholders raised concerns about the additional regulatory burden the changes would impose. They noted that when coupled with the waste export ban on mixed plastics which commences on 1 July—a little bit more than a week away—there's the risk that exporters seeking an exemption to transport plastics will be required to complete two separate, yet similar, administrative processes. Labor senators did seek an explanation from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, which advised that an integrated process to capture both regulatory requirements was in the process of being designed. Needless to say, it would always be preferable if such integrated or streamlined systems were set up in advance rather than coming late on the heels of two sets of changes which, initially, will lump relevant companies with two sets of new administrative obligations.

It's sad to say, but I've heard from waste industry folk that the paperwork for the looming export bans—as I said, the mixed-plastic export ban literally starts on Thursday of next week—alone has been very slow to appear, even though the government's recycling and waste reform was ticked off last year. There's also concern as to whether the government has adequately resourced departmental agencies to monitor and enforce these changes. We know that since coming to office the Liberals have stripped back funding for the environment department by 40 per cent, and there's consistent feedback on this from industry too. Regulation is only as good as the compliance that supports it, and when you don't have effective compliance it means essentially that those companies doing the right thing are disadvantaged because there will be other companies that are happy to get away with doing the wrong thing, to their detriment.

I'll make two further points about the bill. The first is about plastic itself and the challenge that face all of us, wherever we're on the planet. It has taken us all too long to recognise that plastic waste is a form of dangerous pollution. That's just a fact. We know that more than eight million tonnes of plastic go into our oceans each year and that microplastic is now more or less ubiquitous. Nanoplastic has been identified as falling with rain in the Pyrenees and the Colorado Rocky Mountains. British research has examined tiny crustaceans from six of the world's deepest ocean trenches, and 80 per cent of them had microplastic in their guts. Dead whales have been found to contain up to 50 kilograms of plastic and it's estimated that the marine environment alone now contains more than 100 million tonnes of plastic—most of it on the bottom of the ocean or stranded on shorelines and beaches. The CSIRO itself undertook a study that analysed sedimentary cores of the ocean bed at six remote sites some 300 kilometres off the Great Australian Bight. Cores were taken at depths between 1,700 and 3,000 metres. On average, each gram of sediment contained more than one piece of microplastic. The analysis suggested that there could be 30 times more plastic on the ocean floor than there is floating on the surface.

Realistically, we're only at the very early stages of understanding what it means to have microplastics and nanoplastics accumulate in living creatures, including ourselves. The fact that much of this plastic contains colourants, fire retardants and other known carcinogenic chemicals that were never meant to be ingested is a massive cause for concern. To date, we have to acknowledge that almost every piece of plastic ever produced has gone as waste into our environment—either into landfill or into the landscape and seascape at large. We hardly recycle any plastic at all—globally, or in Australia.

Even here, in a developed and relatively sophisticated country like Australia, we struggle to manage 10 per cent of plastic recycled, and we've only ever achieved that by exporting probably two-thirds of that plastic and crossing our fingers that it was being recycled. In truth, we've come to learn that a lot of it was being tossed into rivers in countries like China, Vietnam and Malaysia or it was being burnt.

That brings me to the second point I would like to make which is in reference to our specific circumstances. I have noted that there is a timeliness to this bill. It does follow on from the government's recycling and waste reduction reform that parliament settled at the end of last year. The RWR, as the recycling and waste reform is called, did put in place the framework for banning the export of various waste streams by material category, beginning with glass back on 1 January earlier this year and moving to cover unprocessed mixed plastic in a few weeks time, on 1 July, with other material categories to follow in due course. I'll talk little bit more about that in a minute because the plastic deadline is upon us—literally Thursday next week. There's reason for us all to be concerned about what will actually happen when we cross that line.

This is the second piece of government legislation to come through the House aimed at tackling waste and recycling in the past 12 months. These changes, coupled with the ban on waste exports for mixed plastics, are of course welcome. But no-one should think that these changes alone will kerb the alarming rate of plastic waste pollution or otherwise address Australia's very poor performance when it comes to reducing plastic waste or recycling it or reusing it. Banning the export of plastic waste is only one part of the solution and in many ways it's a relatively simple and superficial action to take. As I said earlier, we didn't volunteer to ban the export of a lot of these materials. We responded to the fact that other countries simply said, 'Hey, we're not taking that rubbish anymore. We're literally not taking that.' If we are to take responsibility for the recycling of our plastic waste here in Australia we have to create capacity for recycling to occur and we must set a functional imperative for the reuse of this recycled material. We have to capture the waste, recycle it into material that can be reused and then we need to have that pull-through demand. At present there is virtually zero market demand for the types of plastic that are so difficult to recycle and yet we allow them to continue to be produced. And we allow the product manufacturers to essentially push their responsibility on to the rest of us and inevitably it means that plastic ends up in our environment.

The export ban on 1 July means that up to 75,000 tonnes of low-quality plastic waste will need to be dealt with in Australia. That's where it should be dealt with. But in the absence of appropriate infrastructure and the absence of an end market for recycled material it's hard to see how that plastic will not be stockpiled or landfilled. And unfortunately those two basic conditions are not met at the moment. We don't have the infrastructural capacity for the reprocessing of low-quality mixed plastic waste and we certainly don't have the end market pull-through.

Submissions from industry to the Senate inquiry on this bill expressed that precise concern. But the government didn't need to wait for the inquiry, because it had itself received expert advice that the risk of low-quality mixed plastic being landfilled or stockpiled after the export ban comes in was not low. It was a realistic risk. Unfortunately, for all the talk of building a circular economy that would address Australia's waste crisis, and create new jobs and innovation in manufacturing, the Morrison government has significantly failed to help lead the systemic change that needs to happen at every part of the circle if we want to create that circular economy. The only clear change the government has made is the relatively straightforward framework that formalises that ban others have imposed on us.

The government hasn't made good on its promise to ensure that Commonwealth purchasing power would help build end markets for recycled materials through improved procurement policy with solid procurement targets. They promised to do so. It's actually listed in their own National Waste Policy Action Plan that we were supposed to have new procurement settings with targets by the end of last year. It didn't occur, nor has the government put its hand on the scales sufficiently when it comes to product stewardship. We've seen enough over the last decade to know that voluntary arrangements do not work. If you're waiting for industry to voluntarily change business as usual you will be waiting forever. Those companies that do the right thing, as I suggested before, are exposed to free riders who are happy to stick with the way they've always done things. That really just cuts the lunch of companies that are making the effort and taking on the burden of being responsible and sustainable.

Last October the assistant minister for waste and recycling said that the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, or APCO, would become an accredited scheme under the government's new waste and recycling laws, because APCO hasn't moved far enough and fast enough. Well, it's seven months later and nothing has occurred. During the most recent round of Senate estimates departmental officials were unable to say when or if accreditation for APCO would occur and couldn't say whether the 2025 recycling targets would be achieved or not, and instead took the question on notice. That does not fill anyone with a lot of confidence.

During last year's parliamentary debate we moved amendments to the government's recycling bill to add plastic packaging to the minister's priority list, but the government voted against that higher ambition and urgency because they said the APCO scheme would be strengthened through accreditation. We are still waiting for that to happen, and plastic packaging is still accumulating on our beaches, in our rivers and throughout our coastal environment. Right now, to give people in the community a sense of the scope of the challenge, recycled content in plastic packaging is only four per cent. So, of plastic packaging as a whole, four per cent incorporates recycled material—well short of the 20 per cent target, which in itself is not that ambitious, to be fair, to be reached by 2025. We are at four per cent.

Only 18 per cent of plastic packaging itself is recycled, with a target of 70 per cent to be reached by 2025. We are now in the middle of 2021 and the accreditation of APCO still hasn't occurred, nor has anything else that would really start to push us towards those targets, which themselves are relatively modest. We know that plastics make up 75 per cent of the waste on our beaches, and most of this is packaging. At some point soon the government is going to need to acknowledge that those 2025 targets are unlikely to be met, and in so doing acknowledge that its hands-off approach is not working, and, hopefully, change course and start to put its hand on the scale. It's desperately needed.

In conclusion, this bill is a necessary response to our participation in the Basel Convention. While it will make little practical difference to the treatment or movement of hazardous waste in Australia, it is a reminder that plastic waste is an enormous problem. It's an acute market failure, with the cost falling on the public at large through massive harm to our environment, to biodiversity and, quite possibly—I would say, more than likely—to human health. There is no doubt that if we continue to consume, directly through food, nanoplastic that has in it carcinogenic chemicals that were never meant to be consumed by humans, I don't think there is much doubt that that's going to have health consequences for us. I also know that there is no doubt the Australian community, especially young Australians, are aghast at the present circumstances. They are aghast at what's occurring. They expect governments to act. They expect governments to take big and meaningful steps, and to take them quickly. That's not happened in the last three terms, the last eight years, of this government. They have come to this issue very, very late. They are moving very slowly.

Yes, waste and recycling has finally made it on to the agenda. But, as with so many other examples of policy focus through this government, there's been a lot of talk, a lot of freshly named and photographed schemes and strategies and centres of excellence, but not nearly enough seriously targeted and calibrated action, and not nearly enough conviction and leadership.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Madeleine King: The amendment is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (10:44): I disagree with the amendment and I support the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021, unsurprisingly. I have been around for a while—but I haven't been around forever—and when I was a child, you'd go to the hardware store, you'd grab a paper bag and you'd grab the bolt nails and stick them in the paper bag. It was the same when I went to the lolly shop, in fact. Lollies didn't come prepacked; they came in bulk containers—I suppose you'd call them—and you'd get a bit of this and a bit of that.

In those days you'd go to the butcher shop and the meat was wrapped up in paper. Interestingly, the floor was covered in sawdust as well. But those times seem to have gone. Meat is now sitting on polystyrene and covered up with plastic. I guess it's healthier in the short term, but one has to ask whether it's healthier in the long term, I suppose. Packaging has changed so much. We are wont to rail at multinationals but, of course, they do respond to consumer demand. I don't think it should be forgotten that, when these changes occur, it's in with the new but it's out with the old because the old is no longer supported—and so it has been with packaging. So, presumably, in large doses, the world has got what it wanted, but it's leading to problems.

Plastic of course has been a godsend as well as a curse. I love my cling wrap, and I like to handle my food in cling wrap. When I open up the cheese I make sure it's got cling wrap on it afterwards so it doesn't deteriorate, and I do that with many other things. But cling wrap is one of the really difficult things to recycle, though it's not large. Plastic recycling basically comes in three distinct streams. There's clear plastics, which is like PET bottles. That is the top grade; it can be used for virtually anything. Then there are hard plastics. That's more like the tie around the top of your bread. Then there are soft plastics, like cling wrap.

My children grew up thinking that I was the duct tape king of the west coast. When I say the west coast, I mean the west coast of South Australia. I mean, there's nothing dad can't fix without duct tape—and I do not want to take the world back to a place without it because it will all fall to bits. But, once again, it's made of plastics. We are so dependent on it in the modern world. But it seems to be an ever-increasing stream of plastic, and we have to face up to that.

We've had a lot of changes in response to the management of rubbish, not just in the federal parliament but also right across the Australian continent, I would say. In any kind of urban or city environment now we see multiple bins—separation at the end of the first use of the plastic, if you like. Then, of course, there are sorting stations, where we all rubbish is pulled out of the bin and divided into where it should be go. Then there is the taxing and limiting of landfill. I know this is slightly off target, but I want to come back to that a little bit later because I think that has particular implications on rural and regional populations. They are an added cost. I think when we make policy, not only in this place but also in our state parliaments, some of these things could be more carefully considered before one-size-fits all legislation is passed that does not necessarily make sense in other places.

But to this legislation, in particular: the bill combines with earlier legislation that we've moved in this area, particularly the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, which bans the export of recyclable plastics. In fact, it adopts the notion that every nation is responsible for its own waste, and I think that is a pretty fair outcome to come to. And, earlier this week, in the other place, we finally dealt with the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Selection, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill. Of course, under the UN agreement there is exactly the same circumstance—that, if the waste is created in your nation, you are directly responsible for dealing with the long-term management of that waste. I was very pleased to see that bill pass on Monday night. So every nation is responsible for its own.

In South Australia, the government there has taken some proactive moves. We've begun the banning of single-use plastics. Straws, swizzle sticks and plastic knives and forks are all finished, and I suspect plastic plates and a few other things won't be far behind. We now seem to be eating off wooden forks and—surprise, surprise!—we've turned back the clock and we've got paper straws. These are, once again, somewhere near those packets of nails we used to pick up at the hardware store. Just on the hardware store, let me ask, Mr Deputy Speaker: have you ever noticed that when you go in there now you actually have to take a pair of tinsnips with you so you can open the packet on your new pair of pliers to use them? The packaging is just so robust, so strong and so indestructible. You do have to wonder whether we could change behaviour in that area. Perhaps that's something this parliament should consider another time. I know why it's largely liked: it's easy to handle and it's good to advertise on. But, it would be a fair thing to ask, is it necessary? And maybe, at another time, we might address that.

I'm grateful to the shadow minister for the environment for putting some of the numbers out there about plastic, showing why it is undeniably a hazardous waste. There are around eight million tonnes of plastic that go into the world's oceans each year and, I'm told, about one per cent of that floats. By process of elimination, I come to the conclusion that about 99 per cent of it sinks. And, of course, it continues to deteriorate and break up into microscopic pieces which are further and further infiltrating the environment. Somewhere along the line, we have to break that pipeline.

I also heard the shadow minister speaking about the amount of rubbish on our beaches. It is a concern. I go for a bit of a jog in the morning along my beach at Port Neill, which doesn't have a lot of it. When I'm running and I see a bit of rubbish, I pick it up and make sure I take it back and get it back into the waste stream. But I'd have to say that, like with some other issues, Australia's contribution to plastics finding their way to the ocean—and we're big consumers of plastic—is probably far, far better on a per capita basis than that of many other nations in the world. Australians generally are good with their plastics. In fact, I talked before about the straws and single-use plastics we got out of the road. We've also gotten rid of a lot of shopping bags in some of the precincts in Australia, including in South Australia. I think our beaches, by world standards, are pretty good.

Most of us in parliament would have had the privilege to travel, and would have had the privilege to travel to the developing world, where you see mountains of plastic and where the rivers and streams are actually being used as garbage disposal units. I suspect that's where the bulk of this eight million tonnes a year is coming from. It is right that we should be addressing our plastics stream in Australia; it is also very important that we become involved in the world conversation here and try to bring about change in the parts of the world that the bulk of the plastics are coming from. There is a very strong similarity here to CO2 reduction in the world. We can make restrictive legislation in Australia and we can tidy up what we do, but unless the rest of the world is on the same boat it will all be to no avail in the long run. So it's right that we can develop good technologies here. We can export those around the world, and so we can with the recycling of plastic.

The government has a number of grants and schemes in place to help businesses set up plastics recycling plants, processing plants, across the nation. There have been a number of councils and others that have approached me over recent months to see what we can get in our local communities to employ people in what will be this new processing stream. We've seen—in South Australia it's been there for many years, but other states are adopting it now—the container recycling legislation. While it comes at a cost, it also employs people in the stream and it leads to a great result where we end up with a very high rate of cans and bottles being recycled. People get employed and those products come back in another form. That's been quite outstanding legislation over a long time, and I'm very pleased that other states have finally got to that point.

This legislation enables the relevant body, the government's hazardous waste advisory service, to access the best information around the world, giving it more flexibility. This is a world problem; it's going to be very important that we help each other out around the world to come up with the best solutions to deal with it. Once again, it has a very similar theme to the reduction of CO2 in the world. We actually have to feed technology to develop the materials and the plant to deal with the issue in front of us so that it's not such a financial impost that we cannot handle it. Now, in Australia we will handle the impost, but I talked about the developing nations. If you're trying to feed your kids, if you're actually trying to get heating into households, this is a very low-priority issue for them. We have to make it as painless as we possibly can. If you can deliver technology that actually saves money rather than costing money, that's when you reach the perfect position.

I said I wanted to come back to regional issues. I have been concerned, particularly in South Australia—and that's the only area I have any particular expertise in—about the way that landfill and the rubbish stream has been handled. It has been handled with what I think is a very city-centric view of the world. This sees communities as far as 800 kilometres away from Adelaide having to transport their waste down to the large landfill and separation sites. On this and other areas, I have challenged a number of scientists who have come in during various Science Weeks and whom I have met over the years. We know, for instance, that methane is 28 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and not one scientist has yet been able to tell me whether, if we allow green waste to break down into methane, you get 28 times less of it than you would if you had burnt it and it turned into CO2.

That might seem to be an esoteric thing to bring into this debate, but the reason I make that point is that it's very difficult to formulate sensible policy unless you actually understand the science that underpins it. In the case of recycling, we get told, for instance, that burning plastics is a disaster, but no-one tells us why. If it's about particulate damage to those who live close to the site of burning, well, that's a very good point. But that's not the same as turning the world's atmosphere into poison. Unless we understand what the real scientific values are, and I don't pretend to—I may get shot down in flames for that statement. I don't pretend to know, but nobody is explaining to me what the differences are when we handle waste in different ways. So, to come back to that issue of mine with landfill, no-one seems able to explain to me why it is better for regional councils to have to transport their rubbish 500, 600 or 800 kilometre than to burn it on site. If they can't explain it to me, I find it very difficult to defend.

I throw those things in because there is an opportunity that maybe it might trigger somebody else's imagination, their thought processes, and we might get to a stage where we are provided with better information by the scientific community. I'm a great admirer of the scientific community. I am rather despondent that fewer and fewer people of the modern world seem to be listening to them. But good facts are good material for people like me, in this position, when I speak to the Australian public. I endorse the bill.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:58): I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Fremantle in respect of the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021. Industrialisation throughout the world has undoubtedly lifted living standards and created prosperity, but it has also, simultaneously, caused widespread environmental degradation from the depletion of resources through to the creation and discharge of toxic wastes, which then enter our waters, soils and air. That, in turn, directly contributes to poor health outcomes through contaminating the food and water that we consume and the air that we breathe. Regrettably, it is sometimes years later that those health effects become apparent. In the interim, people suffer and sometimes die.

All of that was so well highlighted in Erin Brockovich, the film based on the 1993 case against Pacific Gas and Electric Company of California. It was successfully sued for some $333 million for discharging hexavalent chromium into groundwater between 1952 and 1996. The case went to court in 1993, almost 30 years later, which just highlights how sometimes it does take years for these problems to manifest and then be acknowledged, whereby remedial action is taken or the activities are ceased, whatever is the case.

In my view, the Brockovich case is just one of countless similar occurrences throughout the world which, I suspect, have never been investigated but similarly have caused incredible suffering to the people in and around the area where those events occurred. It's happening right now, as we speak, in so many places around the world where hazardous waste is being discharged or dumped into waterways, landfill and oceans. A real concern I have is that it's happening more so in developing countries, where there is little or no oversight of industrial and mining operations and what happens with the waste that is created. It's much, much easier just to quietly bury or discharge waste into waterways, where it's supposedly never seen again. It is a cost saving to the operators if they can get away with it, and quite often they do get away with it, either because of poor oversight or because of, it is alleged, corruption within the governments of those places.

There have been serious examples of similar wrongdoing here in Australia over recent years, some of it deliberate and some of it not so. What is particularly concerning is that in most cases it occurs under the stewardship of what I would have thought were reputable companies—reputable international organisations that actually do know better, understand the harm they are doing, employ scientists and the like, but simply don't care, if they can get away with it, because it adds to their profit bottom line. These are quite often entities that, as it is, make huge profits and know exactly what they are doing and what is happening.

As I said, it's happening here in Australia. In recent years we have gone through the process of trying to determine which sites have been contaminated with PFAS. That was fairly widespread. I accept that much of that was done unknowingly, but I don't believe it's always done unknowingly, and it does occur. I've heard reports in recent times of asbestos still being illegally dumped by so-called reputable organisations—again, when and where they can get away with it. Asbestos, as we know, is very much a toxic product.

I want to talk about one particular issue because it relates to the state of South Australia and my own electorate. Only this year extensive mangrove dieback was detected at St Kilda in South Australia. It was being caused by the discharge of saline brine from neighbouring defunct salt-mining operations. These mangroves are critical to South Australia as an environmental asset. They are the state's major fish breeding grounds as well as being home to an international bird sanctuary. That is the significance of them. Years ago, because of their importance, the City of Salisbury spent millions of dollars in establishing dozens of wetlands and water-harvesting schemes, the key objective being to prevent polluted urban waters from entering the Barker Inlet and destroying the St Kilda mangroves and seagrasses, which at that point were already in decline. As a result of the water-harvesting schemes established by the City of Salisbury, the dieback was reversed. Indeed, the regrowth that had started to occur was wonderful to see. However, in the last two or three years, as the result of one single activity, we're now seeing all of that good work being lost, and the mangroves, the seagrasses and the bird and plant life are now again dying. Why did that happen? It happened because of poor oversight by state government agencies and the irresponsible practice—perhaps unknowingly, I'm prepared to say—of the industrial operator.

My point is simply this: whilst it's good to have regulations—and I might come back to this point a bit later if time permits—it's important that the state and federal government agencies that are charged with the oversight of those regulations are actually able to carry that out. There is not much point in having laws and standards if there is no-one to police them. Most of the time that comes about because governments that are trying to save money start cutting the funding of, and underresourcing, the very departments that are entrusted with that oversight. With respect to the mangroves that I spoke about just a few moments ago, I suspect that the problem was detected more by local community environmentalists than it was by the government departments themselves, which, again, is of concern because, had we not had local environmental activists in that location, the situation might have become even worse than it currently is.

We see that also with the Great Barrier Reef. In recent days, the reef has been the subject of much public coverage, with claims that it could be included on the UNESCO 'in danger' list. The reef has for years been at serious risk, and we quite often—and rightly so—point to the damage that has been caused by climate change. The scientific evidence to support that has been well and truly established. But part of the problem arises because of the polluted water run-off from land that enters the waters in and around the reef and, in turn, contributes to the damage that is being caused to the coral reefs and the like. The reef, as we all know, is incredibly important to Australia. It's a $6 billion tourism asset which, I understand, employs around 60,000 people. It's an international asset. Yet I wonder just how well we monitor what happens with respect to the discharge of water that goes into the waters in and around the reef, and I suspect that, if it weren't for some of the university and CSIRO organisations up in that part of Australia, we would have even less understanding of what is going on. Certainly it concerns me that government oversight of what is happening isn't adequate. With so many issues, that is the real problem. I said earlier on, in relation to St Kilda, that my concern was with respect to the government oversight.

My concern with this legislation is not what it does, because it simply implements the latest recommendations of the Basel Convention relating to transport, both within the country and internationally, of hazardous waste. I have no problem with that. My concern is: will the departments that are entrusted with oversight of those regulations be adequately resourced? I doubt very much that they will be. Indeed, when I looked at one of the issues relating to all this, which was to do with the hazardous waste specialist committee that was set up by the government at the time the legislation was first brought into parliament, I found it very difficult to find any evidence that that committee has even been active. I note that, within this legislation, there is a proposal to do away with the committee and simply seek expert opinion if, and when, required. I have no problem with seeking expert opinion; we should be doing that. But my concern is this: if the hazardous waste committee that was in place has not been actively doing anything, that explains why so many things have gone unnoticed. And that just goes to the point that I'm making, which is that the department is inadequately resourced. We need to ensure that the department is adequately resourced if this legislation is going to mean anything.

The other issue with this legislation, of course, is that much of the detail will be in regulations and is not directly written into the legislation itself. Again, I can understand why you might want to do that; then it could be changed from time to time and therefore it's much easier and convenient to have regulations which can be amended. But, again, it takes that part of the responsibility attached to the legislation out of the hands of this parliament and puts it into a government department.

Finally, and this has been said by other speakers: some eight million tonnes of plastic goes into the oceans every year—that's what's estimated, at least—and I suspect that's doing an incredible amount of damage to ocean waters. But even the composition of that plastic—and I suppose it's why we're dealing with this legislation—literally changes all the time; what was regarded as plastic years ago is very different to the plastic that might be used today. So there has to be an ongoing change to the description of the product.

That brings me to the point about what hazardous waste is. When I looked up the definition of 'hazardous waste' it was so complex and convoluted that it would literally take a lawyer to explain to me what would fall into the category of hazardous waste and what wouldn't. Nevertheless, we could take the overarching view that all waste in one form or another can be hazardous and treat it that way—I suspect that's the intent of this legislation. Then at least we'd have a mechanism by which we might regulate the discharge of any sort of waste into our waterways, air or soils. That should be the objective of this legislation.

I believe it's a very important piece of legislation in as much as we won't have an economy or the lifestyle we have now if we destroy our environment. This kind of legislation goes to the heart of securing and ensuring that we have a sustainable environment.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (11:11): I rise to speak on the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021. With this bill, the Morrison government advances key laws to deliver on Australia's international obligations to strengthen controls on international movements of plastics waste and enhance the process to classify hazardous wastes and treatment technologies. These amendments adopt regulatory powers consistent with Commonwealth legislation and improve compliance and enforcement measures through new penalties and information-sharing measures to improve the administrative efficiency of the act. Ultimately, this bill updates and modernises the act to reduce complexity and improve its operation, while ensuring the standard of environmental protection remains high.

I stand here as a strong voice for my constituents in Higgins, who care deeply about our waste and our international responsibilities to the environment. I am proud that the Morrison government has stepped up to ensure that, as a country, we take responsibility and lead the way in this space. As the Prime Minister has said, it is our waste and our responsibility. Anyone who has lived, worked or travelled in other countries, particularly developing countries, knows how important it is to be stewards of our own environment. Our policies are delivering real outcomes for our natural environment, but also for the world over, by mandating that we do not simply export waste without thought. This is by ensuring that it is first processed for further use and also by enhancing regulations in protecting all global systems from hazardous waste materials.

This is really a matter of leadership. As a nation we have a duty and responsibility for our own waste. We just can't pass the buck to other countries to deal with it. I'm proud to have been a strong voice in calling for a recycling and waste inquiry as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources. For any listeners or viewers, I recommend that you go to the From rubbish to resources: building a circular economy report. There are so many pragmatic things that constituents can do to make sure that they reduce their own waste footprint and therefore help the world to keep this place cleaner and greener.

The hazardous waste act implements Australia's international obligations under the Basel Convention. The amendments in this bill will strengthen transboundary controls on unsorted plastic waste and plastic waste containing hazardous substances. It will ensure Australia's compliance with the Basel Convention. The convention is an international treaty that controls the movement of hazardous waste from one country to another, and its disposal. It seeks to manage the export, import and transit of hazardous waste to minimise the harmful effect of hazardous waste on human health and the environment.

In fact, on 1 July 2021 just this year new standards to regulate international movements of unsorted plastic waste and plastic waste containing hazardous substances were adopted under the Basel Convention. This bill delivers on these key international commitments and complements the landmark Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, under which only single polymer or resin plastics can be exported from July 2021. This is a great outcome for Australia, where we're now moving very rapidly into ensuring that we have environmental stewardship, and that is from next month. It is about solving problems now but also for the future and for the generations that follow.

In fact, it's sobering to think that only 12 per cent of the 103 kilograms of plastic waste generated per person in Australia each year is recycled, and this is mostly overseas. That's 103 kilograms of plastic waste per person, almost double each person's body weight—some exceptions in the chamber perhaps! Each year at Clean Up Australia Day I get a very big plastic bag and I endeavour to get several kilograms worth of plastic. It's very hard to fill a big plastic bag. It doesn't weigh as much as you think, so when we're talking about 103 kilograms per every individual person in Australia that's an awful lot of plastic.

From July 2022 the export of recycled plastics that have not been processed for further use will be banned. We are stepping up and we are taking action. We have a golden opportunity now to turn our recyclable plastics into resources—the title of our inquiry report is From rubbish to resources—and play our part as global trendsetters in this space, while looking out for our international counterparts, as well as reducing our environmental impact, not just as individuals but as a country. These measures show that the government will go one step further than the rest of the world to address pollution from waste plastics.

The current requirement to seek advice on technical matters from the Hazardous Waste Technical Group does not allow the flexibility to obtain the best advice available on a range of key technical issues. The government proposes to transform the way in which guidance on whether a particular material is a hazardous waste or whether a particular waste processing technology is environmentally sound is obtained. We will do this by removing references to the Hazardous Waste Technical Group and replacing it with a new mandatory consultation mechanism that is more appropriate to the relevant decisions. This bill will make amendments to the act to establish a new mandatory consultation process that provides flexibility to consult with a range of appropriately qualified experts from government, research organisations and industry. This will ensure that the government has the best advice available when making these important declarations and that the advice is obtained when we need it.

This bill triggers the Regulatory Powers Act to adopt consistent Commonwealth regulatory powers. These powers are best practice for administering an effective monitoring investigation or enforcement regulatory regime that also provides important safeguards and protects common-law privileges. As we all know, when there's a commons we need to make sure that it's not just the good eggs that do well, but that the bad eggs are held to account. This bill will refine existing criminal offences and introduce new strict liability offences and civil penalty provisions to cover conduct relating to the export, import and transit of hazardous waste.

We want to not just encourage people to do the right thing but make sure that they are punished if they do not. Importantly, new compliance measures include record keeping, auditing and monitoring provisions. Of course, as a government, you can't manage what you're not measuring, and this is an incredibly important technical aspect that will improve the quality of the accountability of this legislation. These amendments are supported by industry and will help level the playing field for those doing the right thing by giving the government appropriate powers to act against those who are not doing the right thing. These amendments will ensure compliance with the hazardous waste act and that Australians and our unique environment are better protected from the harmful effects of hazardous waste.

Anyone who's been to the outback of Australia knows how incredibly delicate some of the ecosystems of our unique environment are. They're world beating. They're precious. In fact, I encourage tourists from around the world to come and be ecofriendly. Make sure that when you go out camping in the outback you take your rubbish with you, because there's nothing worse than going to these beautiful World Heritage sites and seeing any form of plastic or rubbish in those environments. I would welcome some of the states' and territories' acts that have been incredibly important in backing in these provisions and making sure that plastics are not getting into our precious World Heritage environment.

The amendments in this bill will give the government the authority to share information with Commonwealth, state and territory governments where appropriate. It is important that these acts, across the different legislations, are held to be consistent and that there can be sharing of information so we can make sure that state governments and federal governments are working hand in glove. This will improve the compliance and enforcement missions enacted under the regulatory powers act.

The Morrison government has led the nation in taking responsibility for regulation on waste. It's something we are deeply proud of. It is working to help make sure there is strong collaboration between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories across these different legislative boundaries, and I welcome these developments. We will work as one across the three levels of government for the benefit of Australia.

I'd like to note that the local government authority conference was this week. I've had a number of my councils, Glen Eira and Stonnington in particular, meet with me to talk about the very important issues of recycling and waste. I'm very proud of the fact that the minister—I call him 'our waste warrior'!—for rubbish reduction, Trevor Evans, has met with my councils to talk about the very important issues that face them with regard to recycling and waste. The federal government is working hard to make sure local councils can deal with their waste in a systematic and safe way.

The reforms in this bill are common sense. They will deliver streamlined, transparent, efficient and appropriate regulation. Most importantly, these reforms will protect Australians and our environment. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (11:21): I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021. There have been good contributions from all sides of the House on an important subject, and the assistant minister, the member for Brisbane, has led great consultation and communication around our waste agenda more broadly; I want to recognise that in the House today.

I want to recognise the importance for every single Australian of this government taking a proactive and committed approach when it comes to federal policy that looks after our waste, leading from a prime ministerial statement two years ago where the Prime Minister said, 'It's our waste, it's our responsibility, it's our economic opportunity.' Much of the agenda on waste has led from that statement. It's been backed in by solid commitments like our Recycling Modernisation Fund—$690 million of federal money matched by industry and state governments, so that everyone has skin in the game. We know that the projects that will be developed under the Recycling Modernisation Fund will be real, be lasting and deliver that economic opportunity and, most importantly, deliver 10,000 jobs over 10 years, many of them in regional Australia. All this leads from this government's determination to turn waste—about which, I think it's fair to say, people a generation ago said: 'Put it in landfill. Don't worry about it. It's someone else's problem', and they certainly never saw it in the context of remanufacturing, recycling, remodernising and repurposing.

The hazardous waste act implements Australia's international obligations under the Basel Convention, which controls the movement of hazardous waste between countries. This legislation aligns our laws with our international commitments and ensures we take responsibility for our waste plastic, managing this waste in a way that minimises harm to human health and the natural environment not only in Australia but also overseas. The hazardous waste act will now align with best practice regulation, and the most appropriate tools will be in place for the government to efficiently regulate the movement of hazardous waste. These changes will better protect Australians and our environment. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fremantle 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 amendment be disagreed to.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (11:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (11:35): I'd like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments (2) and (3) be agreed to and that amendments number (1) and (4) be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendments (2) and (3) and, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendments (1) and (4).

The SPEAKER: Just to clarify, the minister is saying there are four amendments that have been returned from the Senate. The minister hasn't moved the amendments yet; I'll get him to do so.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (11:36): I move:

That amendments (2) and (3) be agreed to.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (11:37): These aren't the only amendments that came from the government side. What we saw yesterday in the Senate, just on the day after the Deputy Prime Minister was sworn in, was that he and his party wasted no time in trying to trash the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is a member who could gatecrash his own party. That's what we've seen—a National Party member and now leader gatecrashing his own party and trashing the coalition. A Murray-Darling Basin plan is essential not just for good agricultural product but also for those communities in South Australia.

Government members interjecting—

Mr ALBANESE: I note a South Australian member is actually interjecting. I'd say that what he should do is interject against his National Party colleagues. The tail, once again, is trying to wag the dog. Of course, with the rise of the member for New England to be Deputy Prime Minister, there's been some discussion about what that means for the way the government will operate and the way this parliament will function. Well, spoiler alert: the Deputy Prime Minister is the spoiler, the great spoiler within the coalition. He is the great divider within the coalition, and we saw it. We saw the National Party have a meeting and, as Senator Canavan said on radio this morning, deliberately not tell their Liberal colleagues what they were going to do, because, as he said, their Liberal colleagues would have pulled the bill. So the National Party is plotting, within the government, against the government of which they are a part. If there's anything that exemplifies the chaos that we've seen this week, it is what occurred in the Senate last night. This has occurred at a time when we have absolute chaos when it comes to the big challenge of this country.

Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister—the virtual Prime Minister on the screen over there—acknowledge that he had just two jobs. Well, he did have two jobs. He had the job of the rollout of the vaccine and fixing national quarantine. That should have been the priority, but what have we had this week? We've had a plot against the former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Riverina, on the basis of no argument that he's done anything wrong—no argument at all. They've queued up to say what a decent bloke he is. Between putting a spear in between the third and fourth ribs of the former Deputy Prime Minister, they've queued up to say what a good bloke he is and then gave him a standing ovation as he walked out the door. Well, the current Deputy Prime Minister didn't get a standing ovation when he had to resign in disgrace the last time he had the job, and he won't get a standing ovation from them the next time he has to leave, because his whole record in office is one of chaos.

What we saw last night in the Senate was chaos—government members moving amendments to their own legislation and then being rejected and then going out there on radio this morning spruiking as to why it was the case. We know that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is absolutely critical. As a former water shadow minister, I know exactly why this critical plan for Australia's food bowl as well as for the use of water in this country—particularly for the end users down the bottom there in South Australia—is absolutely critical to access to clean water. But what we have from this government is absolute chaos, and we've got Liberal Party members from South Australia defending this. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired.

Mr ALBANESE: Thank you. What we have now is a major test for this government: do they allow the National Party to keep the water portfolio? That's the big test for this government. We now know what the National Party think about water. They want to trash the centrepiece of water policy in this country, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which has enjoyed widespread support, has gone to election after election and has survived changes of government, but won't survive the chaos that has now infected this government. The infections around this country aren't confined to COVID-19; there's an infection over there—an infection of chaos and disunity that has spread from the National Party room onto the floor of the Senate and is now spreading onto the floor of the House of Representatives.

The fact is that this legislation is still very weak. There were a range of things that were promised by this government with respect to the inspector-general bill that we are dealing with here. In August 2019 the government announced 'a tough cop on the beat'. One of the things that they announced as part of that was that the inspector-general role—wait for this—was going to be able to report things to the Commonwealth integrity commission. What do you think the weakness in that is now? What's missing? There's no integrity commission. So we have a process to have an inspector-general to report things like when there are rorts. So why is it that there might be an issue here with the inspector-general, a national integrity commission, water and the Deputy Prime Minister—the current bloke?

What is it, do you think?

Mr Burke: There's a link!

Mr ALBANESE: What do you think the link is there? Why mightn't they want someone to closely examine the water buybacks that have been undertaken under this government, now that we have this Deputy Prime Minister, the bloke who'll sit in this chair at lunchtime? What do you reckon? I reckon there's another member as well, the member for Hume, who might be a bit interested in whether this gets a close examination or not.

The fact is that this is a government that doesn't have integrity. This is a government that is all about itself. We've seen it this week when, in the middle of a pandemic, they have prioritised stabbing rather than jabbing. They've prioritised stabbing a Deputy Prime Minister, a man of integrity, a man who doesn't have question marks over his buybacks and his personal involvement in these issues—a man whom, whilst I have substantial policy disagreements with him, there is no cloud over. You can't say that about his colleagues.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr ALBANESE: You can't say that, can you? Their priority was to get rid of him and then to immediately flex their muscles and say: 'We're not really a part of the coalition. We don't care about South Australia. We don't care about proper use of water to maximise agricultural outputs whilst ensuring environmental sustainability. We don't care about having a national integrity commission. We're showing once again that we're just focused on ourselves.'

That's the problem for this mob opposite. They've been there for almost a decade now, for the best part of a decade, and they'll be asking for even more time. They are without a plan for the future—just a plan to wreck, not a plan to actually deal with the current challenge of COVID-19, let alone a plan to recover stronger. This has been a debacle of a final sitting week, a debacle that began with the stabbing of a man of integrity and his replacement with the bloke who has presided over this attack on a key part of our agriculture and water policy in this country.

Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (11:47): At the conclusion of this debate, under standing orders, I will be moving additional amendments to this bill that are directly relatable to the Senate amendments that came back into the House at the conclusion of last night.

Honourable members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! Order! The question is that Senate amendments (2) and (3) be agreed to. I call the shadow minister.

Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:48): What is going on with this government? If you can't govern yourself, you can't govern the nation. It's about time this government got its act together. It is unbelievable that less than one day after the new Deputy Prime Minister was sworn in, having knifed the former Deputy Prime Minister, the Nationals in the Senate were moving amendments against their own government's legislation. Now, today, we are seeing the Nationals Whip saying that he's going to be moving amendments, presumably surprise amendments, against the government's legislation as well.

What is going on with this country and with this government? It is chaos. It is absolute chaos, and the people who will suffer will be all of the people who rely on the Murray-Darling Basin, the people who rely on the health of the rivers—and that's all Australians, because the Murray-Darling Basin is of incredible economic significance to our country. It's of significance because of agriculture, it's of significance because of regional communities, it's of significance because of Aboriginal communities, and it's of significance because Australians care about the natural environment that relies on these rivers being healthy. And you people cannot seem to get your act together on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is fundamental and underpins the health of these rivers.

Instead of having stable government, instead of having what we've been told is commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is a commitment to deliver the 450 gigalitres—of which, by the way, about two gigalitres have actually been delivered—a tiny, tiny fraction has been delivered. Instead of the stability, the commitment, the reassurance, we have the National Party Whip saying he's going to move amendments to undermine the plan, to shred the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That's what is happening in this government. That's what is happening right now, before our eyes. We are here in this chamber seeing an unfolding debacle, and it has been a debacle after debacle after debacle sort of week, hasn't it? It's been an absolute disgrace of a week. I cannot actually believe that this government is allowing itself to be so divided, to be so chaotic and to be so reckless about this incredibly important environmental community and economic asset. People up and down South Australia and people up and down the entire country are now looking to this government and saying, 'What is going on?'

Why do we have to have a situation where amendments like this are being sprung on the House because the National Party are trying to sort out their own internals? Why are we spending our time on this internal issue, where we see a senator for Victoria, Senator McKenzie, just trying to get her spot back in the cabinet? Why is it that we have to be in a situation where the Liberals have been so absolutely unable to get a handle on the National Party? I say to the Prime Minister, wherever he might be right now, it's about time you face up to the fact that you cannot allow the National Party to retain the water portfolio. It's about time that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party stand up to the fact that they cannot allow the National Party to retain this portfolio.

We saw the member for Sturt yesterday stand up and claim that he was going to stand up for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Well, have a word to your Liberal colleagues and get them to finally stop this incredibly important portfolio being handed to the National Party. Until you do that, it's just crocodile tears from the Liberal Party. It's nothing but crocodile tears. The Liberals from South Australia cannot be trusted on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Just like the Liberal minister for water in South Australia, he has managed to completely undermine the 450 gigalitres that's of such significant importance to South Australians. Just like their state counterparts, the Liberals from South Australia are unable to take control and to get a handle on what's happening in the Murray-Darling Basin. They are unable to stand up for South Australians, and they are certainly unable to do anything about the fact that, because of the internals of the coalition, because of secret coalition deals where these sorts of arrangements are agreed to, because of all of those things, the National Party gets control of water.

And what happens when we see the National Party get control of water? We see this circus happening in our nation's parliament. It's about time that some things happened in this place to support the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It's all well and good to say that you're committed to the plan. It's all well and good to say you will deliver on the plan on time and in full. That's all well and good, but these are just words unless they are backed up by actions. So we have called on the government to actually make sure that someone is in charge of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan who can be trusted to stand up for it, and that means taking it off the National Party.

Due respect to the minister, this week's complete debacle has shown that the Nationals cannot be trusted on water. And when I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about this the other day in question time, he said, 'Oh, we're just listening.' You're not 'just listening'. What you are doing is fundamentally shredding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and it is Australians and Australian communities who will pay the price. You're pitting farmer against farmer and state against state, and you should be ashamed. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): The question is that amendment Nos (2) and (3) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (11:54): I move:

That amendments Nos (1) and (4) be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (11:54): I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments Nos (1) and (4), and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

Question agreed to.

Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (11:55): by leave—I move:

The amendments were unavailable at the time of publishing.

It is tough to have to stand here in this place, when you live in the Murray-Darling Basin and you experience the hardship each and every day, to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, who spends all of his life in Sydney, and from the opposition water minister, who spends all of her life in Brisbane, standing up telling us what's fair and what's reasonable in relation to water policy. These amendments are effectively what the various state governments all agree on, with the exception of the City of Adelaide. So, throughout Queensland, right through New South Wales and right through Victoria, these amendments are very well received.

In late 2018 another 450 gigalitres of water was effectively ruled out because of a new socioeconomic neutrality test. It effectively said that the new socioeconomic neutrality test could not take more water out of agriculture for the environment if it was going to have a negative and detrimental effect on the communities. That was agreed to by all states. So what we're doing here is simply legislating that. So the 450 is out—that's been proven.

Then we have the 605s. It's another 605 gigalitres worth of water. Some of the states are effectively saying that the 605 projects, which are environmental projects, are having trouble reaching the required time lines by 2024 and they may fail. What these amendments do is actually give the states the time and the flexibility to make sure that the 605 gigalitres worth of environmental projects can come to fruition, and, if the projects that are currently on the list cannot be done, then we're putting into legislation the flexibility that the states can find new projects and they can have extended time lines to make sure that those environmental projects are in fact met. These are the issues that are again heavily supported by the states in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin. So, the 450 is out and the 605 is given greater flexibility and greater time lines.

In amongst this whole recovery of water, what has been the worst policy by any government has been the concept that you end up getting a big chequebook from government, you go and find desperate farmers that need to sell their water to retire debt and you pay them a premium for their water. That water effectively just leaves the agricultural districts, and it just goes straight to the environment. So we're going to put a line through buybacks, simply because buybacks are most destructive, dangerous and damaging. From a government, they're also incredibly lazy. We're saying no more buybacks, and this is primarily aimed at the Labor Party because the Labor Party still have buybacks at the top of their policy direction. That is what the Labor Party want to do. Should they ever be back in government, their first port of call, their first action, would be simply to go back and buy water off desperate farmers. We're saying we want to legislate that, even though it's already government policy, and no more buybacks.

We want to create certainty for our agricultural sector. Everybody in the House always wants to talk about what a great job our farmers are doing during this pandemic, about how we're able to keep the supermarkets full of food and about all the benefits that we have. The opposition love talking about how our farmers are doing a great job and how our supermarkets are doing a great job. But they forget about the most important component of this, which is the component of water. You can't have it both ways, but the opposition love to have it both ways. Unfortunately, there is a finite amount of water that we get to deal with each and every year. Sometimes it's plentiful, as it is at the moment, and sometimes, in drought, it's very, very scarce. These amendments would make a little bit of water a little bit less scarce.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order?

Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 160, which states clearly:

The House may only amend a House bill which has been returned from the Senate if its further amendment is relevant to or consequent on the Senate amendments or requests for amendments.

Mr Speaker, I put to you that these amendments, as we know, were moved in the Senate yesterday in exactly the same form now proposed by the honourable member. But they do not relate to the amendments that have come back from the Senate. They are not consequent on the Senate amendments or request for amendments and, on that basis, I believe that they are out of order.

The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on the subject. I particularly want members not to be interjecting. Obviously, the Leader of the House has raised a point of order. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, and I think members would expect me to consider the matters carefully. I can't really do that if people are deciding to interject.

Mr Burke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Standing order 160 would have applied, except that the House has effectively suspended it. The moment when we suspended it was when the mover asked leave as to whether he would be allowed to do this. At that moment, any member of the House could have stood up and denied leave. I was the only one who stood up and specifically granted leave to allow for these amendments to all be moved and to be moved together. That has now happened. The moment to object under this standing order has now passed. If there were, for example, one amendment or if the member had gone straight to moving them without seeking leave in any way then that standing order and the point of order raised by the Leader of the House would have prohibited us from going any further. But leave was given for what has now been moved to be moved. Leave has the same impact as suspending standing orders, and that's what occurred.

The SPEAKER: I make an observation to the House. I obviously came in just as the member for Nicholls was moving the amendments because I could see he was on his feet but he hadn't actually moved them. I know the point the Leader of the House is trying to make. The difficulty for the chair is that you cannot make a judgement on the amendments until they are moved. So I wanted to hear the member for Nicholls. How would I make a judgement under standing order 160 without knowing what the amendments are and not even having heard from the member? Clearly the intent is not for the chair or the Speaker to rush in and pick up the amendments before they're moved and make a judgement and have, almost, a preventative ruling. So I think hearing from the member is absolutely necessary. We've now done that.

The Leader of the House has very quickly moved that he thinks they should be ruled out of order on the basis of standing order 160. I know that, when members move amendments, they seek advice, and they certainly know what the risks are. Let's be very clear about that. I don't think these have been moved in the ignorance of the risk of breaching standing order 160. I think the point the Manager of Opposition Business is making, though, can equate with what I'm saying, which is that I needed to hear what the member has said about the amendments. I will obviously make a ruling one way or another. I don't think I need to do that straightaway. I'd be happy to hear some more contributions on the amendments. The Leader of the House has expressed one view. I certainly have a preliminary view on the matter, and the Manager of Opposition Business obviously has a clear view on the matter. But, given the circumstances, we've heard from the member for Nicholls, and we've heard from the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, obviously. I'd be happy to hear some other contributions on the subject. The member for Nicholls is welcome to speak, and what he's speaking on now is the point of order. The member for Nicholls.

Mr DRUM: Effectively, as I understand it, Speaker, under standing order 160, there has to be a directly relatable link between the amendments that I have put forward and the amendments that came back from the Senate last night. The amendments that came back from the Senate from the government were entirely about the inspector general and the inspector general's role. And, in a very practical sense in terms of what's going to go on in the future, the inspector general will be actually in charge of a lot of these 605 projects that states will put forward and states will knock back. The inspector general will, in fact, have a real role to play in how the 605 SDLAM offset projects are dealt with and whether or not they are effective or ineffective. So the inspector general's role is directly relatable to the amendments that I have put forward. In relation to the 450 projects—because government policy is that 450 not be delivered with water, but that 450 be delivered with environmental works and complementary measures—again that will be the role and responsibility of the inspector general. So my directly relatable link from the amendments that came back from the government in relation to the IG and the IG's bill with the amendments that I have put forward directly come around those two main components of the 605 and the 450 and the National Party's desire to have the 605s fixed up and the 450 knocked out.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on the point of order.

Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, and just to provide some further clarity, the amendments the honourable member is seeking to move are clearly out of order as they're neither relevant to nor consequent on the Senate amendments. The Senate made a very specific amendment to this bill—that is, to require all water trades across the Murray-Darling Basin to be recorded on a national water register. This is a specific amendment to section 4(3) of schedule 3 of the Water Act 2007.

The amendments which the honourable member is seeking to move are not related to the national water register. These amendments do not even relate to the same schedule of the Water Act. The amendments which are seeking to be moved relate to water recovery generally and the timing of reviews of the Basin Plan, which is in schedule 2. So the amendments being moved clearly sit outside the scope of the amendments as relayed from the Senate. On that basis, clearly, they should be ruled out of order.

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business?

Mr Burke: On the point of order: I will just raise again that the House is the master of its own destiny. I appreciate the point that you made earlier, Mr Speaker, about the opportunity for the chair to make a ruling that the amendments need to be presented—I will simply add this detail. The amendments had been circulated in the House and, having been circulated, the House then gave leave for this course of action. That has occurred—it occurred with the knowledge of standing order 160 and it occurred with the full text of the amendments having been circulated in the House. The House gave leave for this course of action and the House should be allowed to do so.

The SPEAKER: Respectfully, I disagree on one aspect of that. Technically, that's true, but standing order 160 stands in its own right. It doesn't say that an amendment can't be moved, really. If it's seen to breach standing order 160 it's that it not be put before the House for a vote. That's really what it's saying. Certainly, I would argue, that it's absolutely within the right of the Speaker not only to see the amendment but to hear the justification for why the amendment is being made and to hear the points of order—as we're hearing now.

There certainly have been occasions—not many in my Speakership—where amendments have been ruled out, and I think quite justifiably, but without an opportunity for any debate. They were really ruled out with an iron fist, if you like. I haven't taken that course; I actually wanted to hear from the member for Nicholls, to see whether my view would be altered by any details that he would put forward to actually show that connection.

Let me be very clear about it: I think that the Manager of Opposition Business is trying to say that the House gave leave, and I understand the point he's making. But that doesn't then mean—just by the mere moving of an amendment that might breach 160, if a decision is taken by the chair that it indeed does—just because leave has been granted that a determination can't be made prior to the amendment being voted upon. That's certainly my view. I will happily hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Albanese: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order by the Manager of Opposition Business, the processes that have occurred here are, firstly, that the member for Nicholls indicated he wished to move an amendment. He then circulated the amendment to all members, and I must say that they were actually circulated to all members. All members then got the opportunity to grant leave, which is not the job of any specific member but as you're aware, Mr Speaker, under standing orders it's the responsibility of each and every member of the House.

Of the 150 people who had the opportunity—

Mr Joyce: It's 151!

Mr Albanese: It's 150; he can't give leave to himself—150 plus one, Barnaby. So 150 people had the opportunity to say no—every one—and no-one did. At that point in time, the member for Nicholls moved his amendments and they're now before the House.

I'll ask you to consider this, Mr Speaker, in your deliberations: on a range of occasions when confronted with issues which are, shall we say, open to interpretation, Speakers have consistently made the determination that the House is the master of its own destiny. You have had a process whereby the House has determined to consider the amendments. That's the first point. The second part of that process is whether it agrees to the amendments or not, and that is a matter, again, in my view and my submission to you, for the House now. There is something before the House; it has been moved. It's been moved in accordance with the standing orders and processes. Leave was given, and then it was moved by the member for Nicholls, so now it is up to the House as to whether they agree to that or not. That is an important part of the process—that all of us have a responsibility to determine what we think about the amendments moved by the member for Nicholls.

For many members of the House that, unusually, could be an uncertain result, because it's pretty clear that the idea of the normal circumstances, whereby you have coalition members voting one way and Labor voting the other and the crossbenchers doing what they do, is not applying in this case. So I, for one, am very interested in the outcome, it must be said, and I wouldn't want anything other than members' right to exercise their views on this. I know that the member for Kingston and other members from South Australia are particularly interested in the casting of a vote on this position. I'd say, as I said, in conclusion, the first part has been done; it's been agreed by the House with leave that the amendments be moved. All that remains is for the House to determine its position, and I do not believe it would be appropriate, with respect, for the Speaker or for any other process to circumvent the casting of a democratic vote on the amendments moved by the member for Nicholls.

The SPEAKER: I'm being very patient, and, just before I call—

Mr Joyce interjecting—

The SPEAKER: If the Deputy Prime Minister could cease interjecting, that would assist everybody. I'll just say to the Leader of the Opposition: certainly leave was given for him to move the amendments together, and I've made my arguments. I don't accept the argument that, because the member has moved them, once that has occurred the Speaker can't make a ruling on whether the amendments are in order or out of order.

An honourable member interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Everyone has had a good say, and for once you've all spoken longer than me! I don't accept that at all, and I couldn't accept that for the role of the Speaker. I could not expect that. But I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, and then I'll be very open with the House about what choices the House has. The Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr Burke: The shadow minister, the member for Griffith, has just raised with me the specifics of amendment (3). We had four amendments come back from the Senate. Amendment (3) involves omitting subsection 222D(3) from the principal act. That subsection is quite specifically about the implementation of the plan, which is what these amendments go to.

The SPEAKER: I'll be very direct on this point, and I want the House just to listen carefully to what I say because it might surprise some people. It won't surprise the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business—or, for that matter, the Leader of the Opposition, who's had both roles over the years.

Mr Joyce interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Deputy Prime Minister, I am trying to deal with a serious situation for the House. It is not a time to interject. In all seriousness, you risk not being here if there's a vote, which I suspect there will be at some point.

I've outlined my views. I've listened to the views. I understand the cases that are being made; even that last point, I've heard. But let me be very candid: before amendments are drafted, advice is sought, things are considered, and certainly the issue of standing order 160 as a risk has been raised. I obviously disagree with the question of leave, and I've explained that; I won't go through that again. I understand the House clearly wishes to make a decision on this. The Leader of the Opposition made it very clear he'd just like to see a vote. I understand that. But that doesn't mean the standing orders can be ignored.

So what I'm going to do—and please hear me out on this, because it's important for all members—is: I am ruling that these amendments breach standing order 160. That's certainly my considered advice, and that's my ruling. But I am going to say to the House that the House can seek to make a different ruling. The House can move dissent from my ruling. And let me make clear: in doing so—and this is not well known—that is in no way a reflection on me as Speaker. It is not any question of confidence. This is often misunderstood; it really is. But Practice makes it really clear that, on an issue of a ruling like this, it is in no way a question of confidence, and, as Speaker, it would not in the slightest, in my mind, be any reflection or judgement if the House took a different case. So if a motion of dissent was moved it would be seeking to make an alternative ruling.

What I'm really saying to the House is—and I want the House to listen to this—that I believe the amendments breach standing order 160. If the House decides otherwise, that's fine—and I can go through all the precedents, if you want—but it would just mean the House was taking responsibility for the matter. That's what it would mean. Now, is that clear to everybody? You don't need me to go through all the historic examples?

Debate interrupted.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (12:51): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am pleased to introduce the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021. The amendment will officially change the name of Innovation and Science Australia (known as ISA) to Industry Innovation and Science Australia (known as IISA).

Since 2016, ISA has provided strategic, whole-of-system advice on the government's investment in science, research and innovation, with a view to enhance the performance of Australia's innovation system.

As the government's premier strategic advisory body on industry innovation, the refreshed IISA will play a pivotal role in guiding and advocating for government policies and programs to drive economic recovery and growth—in particular our $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy.

The passage of this bill renaming ISA to IISA therefore marks a simple but significant step in implementing these transformational policies.

The inclusion of industry in the name is an important signal to stakeholders in both the private and public sectors.

It acknowledges the critical role that innovation and science play in enabling competitive Australian industries and driving a productive, resilient and prosperous economy.

It highlights our commitment to seeking the best expert advice on these matters; to supporting genuine and practical innovation in Australian priority sectors; and to ensuring sovereign capability and industry resilience—particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for quick and robust economic recovery.

The passage of the bill will underscore IISA's function as a direct voice for strategic industry input to government on policy development, implementation and evaluation. The name change is backed up by recent appointments to the IISA board with strong Australian industry experience and networks, and an updated statement of expectations for the board's work going forward.

Finally, the name change also clarifies the role of IISA in relation to our other expert advisory bodies, such as the National Science and Technology Council, allowing for more effective and productive collaboration in future.

I commend this bill to the House.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:54): I rise to speak on the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021, and I note the comments of the minister. It's one of my great privileges to be on the industry, research and science committee with the current Deputy Prime Minister and previous chair of that committee, the member for New England. We're currently undertaking an inquiry into the space industry. I note that this piece of legislation is not particularly controversial, and it has not significant changes. That's why the Labor Party will be making some contributions. I know that Ed Husic will be leading some of those contributions. I will leave my contribution there.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (12:55): I rise to speak in favour of the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021, which amends the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, or the R&D act. I acknowledge at the outset the administrative nature of the bill and the legislated name change of the independent statutory body. But I feel the need to rise because I'm so passionate about this area. The new name, Industry Innovation and Science Australia, reflects the updated focus of the body on Australian industry and particularly the Morrison government's very clear approach to making Australian industry stronger and more competitive as we continue to recover from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. I think that, in the COVID-19 pandemic, we've probably never seen more pivoting going on in our country. When we look to R&D and innovation, we know that industry has partnered beautifully with the excellent medical research and health innovation that occurs in this country. I welcome the fact that this name change will help to better formalise this sort of arrangement. Words do really matter, particularly with relation to signalling to the wider community and stakeholders that industry is vital to our economic recovery. Industry and innovation complement one another, hence the rebadging of the body.

This legislation is not purely an administrative move. This change reflects the Morrison government's acknowledgment of the critical role of innovation and, more importantly, science, and it reminds us what science is truly about: knowing more, so that innovation can prevail in the products that can be consumed by the general populace that increase efficiency and quality of life for all. For this, there must be clear links between science, innovation and industry, and this bill allows and, in fact, encourages and fosters those links. I have spent my life in science and I understand how important it is that we bring that diversified mindset to the way that we solve problems for the world. The taxpayer knows this, and wants it and deserves it. As the government's leading strategic body on industry innovation, the remodelled IISA will play a pivotal role in guiding government policies and programs that will drive our economic recovery post COVID. Our government values the role business and research collaboration play, and we want to strengthen that collaboration.

If you look to the medical research institutes of Australia, you'll see that innovation mindset, and that is because they understand the resilience and resourcefulness that is needed in a constrained economic environment. We as a government know that, with the direct input of industry professionals, our economy will rebound even faster. It will enable us to grow stronger and to build higher-quality skilled jobs. This is becoming even more important in the 21st century, as we pivot again and again to a knowledge economy. We are determined to drive our innovation industry agenda forward with our $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy. As a scientist, I welcome this strategy. I'm acutely aware that the strategy this government is taking towards innovation in industry is for industry by industry. This plan will see the creation and development of internationally competitive manufacturing businesses that will focus on six key areas, and these have been chosen because they are building on the shoulders of the greatness of these sectors. The six key areas are, of course, medical products, resources technology and critical minerals processing, space, defence, recycling and clean energy, and food and beverage production. These are the issues that are important for Australia's future. Each area has a road map allowing our country to strengthen its manufacturing capability.

The budget handed down this year by the Treasurer will see a restoration of business confidence and lower energy costs, as well as an aligning of research and research capabilities and programs to priority areas. The Modern Manufacturing Strategy we announced last year forms part of our JobMaker plan, which is already seeing real benefits flow through to our economic recovery. There is no doubt that this government's record of handling the economy, particularly in the recovery phase of the pandemic, has been first class. With prepandemic levels of unemployment rebounding, our economy is roaring back, and the government is only just getting started.

We cannot be complacent. Our manufacturers are still facing difficulties, but this partnership between government, industry, science and the research community will help solve the problems that they face and give them confidence to be competitive and productive. As I said in my first speech, we need to be a smart economy. Our businesses need skilled and productive labour, low energy costs, a fair industrial relations framework, a competitive taxation system, efficient regulatory mechanisms and favourable trade arrangements. The Morrison government promises to continue to provide this agenda to our hardworking Australians.

The Morrison government has made a clear commitment to ensure research and science are supporting industry growth. This is being done by a further investment in 11 rounds of the highly successful Cooperative Research Centres Projects. These funding grants for industry-led research collaboration really do kickstart these partnerships and are the glue between these collaborations. Through this scheme, businesses are funded to develop a product, service or process that will solve problems for industry and deliver real outcomes. Real outcomes are the focus of our government, as we believe plentiful, good-paying jobs in growing industries form the foundation of a future with a strong economy.

Successful grants that have gone to businesses and have already been undertaken for the cooperative research centres include those to businesses converting food into compostable stretch wrap; businesses upcycling waste including plastics into bricks, fuels and other materials; businesses that are increasing the affordability of gene therapy and vaccine productions; and even businesses that are making joint reconstruction surgeries more affordable and accessible. In medical research we often say, 'If you haven't published, then you haven't actually made an impact.' They've moved now to saying, 'If you haven't patented, you haven't made an impact.' But I'd go further and say, 'If you haven't made a product or a policy, then you haven't made an impact.'

These are just a few examples of businesses pursuing innovation, and that has the support of the Morrison government. Without this funding, these businesses may never have been lifted off the ground nor have been able to make the significant impact to the world we live in. Moreover, the government's research and development tax incentive allows companies to innovate by offsetting costs of crucial research and development. Over $2 billion has already been invested in businesses every year through this program, and Australian manufacturers have been the largest sector to have benefited from the scheme.

In addition to the change of the name, this legislation formalises other measures, including new members and a new mandate for those members of the new IISA. Last October, the government announced five new members were being added to the reinvigorated agency, including CEO of DuluxGroup, Patrick Houlihan, and Woodside Energy's Lauren Stafford. Patrick and Lauren have been appointed to the board for three years and will be joined, as new members of Industry Innovation and Science Australia, by fintech and consumers rights expert Scott Farrell, space technology entrepreneur Dr Alex Grant, and internationally recognised agtech innovator Sarah Nolet—and it's great to see gender equity in this area. This eclectic group of appointments brings a wealth of industry depth and experience but, importantly, fresh and modern thinking.

The Morrison government is putting industry firmly front and centre of its economic recovery plans. These are pragmatic, practical, sensible approaches to building jobs into our new future. We know that the jobs of tomorrow will be decided by the leaders of today. We know that the role industry plays in innovation and science is critical to the success both of those initiatives and of others. This legislation is necessary to ensure our economic recovery looks to the future through the lens of innovation and the role industry plays in revitalising our economy.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:04): At the outset, I want to flag that Labor is not going to oppose the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021, because this bill is a do-nothing bill. There would be as much value in opposing this bill as maybe opposing it on the grounds that we didn't like the font.

This bill does one thing only: it puts one word into the existing title of a government agency or body. It was called Innovation and Science Australia and now it will be called—ta-dah!—Industry Innovation and Science Australia. That's the big reform! The most substantive reform on innovation that's being put forward by this government is a name change. It's marketing—who would have guessed that the big push in innovation by a government led by a marketer is to do a name change? It's a brand change—a brand refresh, as those advertisers like to refer to it—and that's it.

This is laughable for any of the speakers who will speak on the bill after this. Bear in mind that in this session of parliament, which we started in February and are finishing today, the most substantive bit of legislation on innovation—the biggest thing that they've done on innovation, an activity that's required desperately so that we can rethink and re-conceive the operation of the economy in this country post pandemic—is this bill to change one word in in the name of an existing body. It's laughable! What will happen is that every government speaker on this one bit of legislation is going to go on about the importance of innovation, its value to the economy, the way they support manufacturing and all the things they do, and this bill does nothing about that—not a jot! Nothing in this bill advances that agenda, maybe other than that a printer will get a bit more money out of the government to reprint letterhead and some business cards, and a web designer will redo the website. That's all they're getting!

Let me make this clear: in making these criticisms, I'm not criticising the people who are involved in ISA. The people who are involved now, or in the past, are great contributors in advancing the innovation agenda in this country. They've done a lot of good work in times past and nothing of what I say in relation to this bill in any way, shape, form, word or anything should be seen as a reflection on their contribution. In fact, we celebrate what they've done and we champion too their ability to contribute—some of the people who are there or have been there. There was Atlassian's Scott Farquhar for one. I've said to him previously that we're very grateful for the consideration and thought that's been given to the work they produce, amongst a range of other activities which are done by ISA or, after this bill goes through, IISA.

That's not my criticism; my criticism is that the government are absent from a serious agenda for innovation. They have no clear objectives about what innovation will do, what they're doing in terms of innovation and how that will help to work with the business sector, education partners and others to advance innovation in this country. There's no broad game plan on how to advance innovation in this country through this government. All we have is advertising and marketing; we have nothing substantive underneath that. Exhibit A in the prosecution of that case is the bill itself. Again, like everything the government does, this bill is light on policy but very heavy on spin.

Apart from renaming the bill, there will be some consequential amendments to other government legislation. But all those amendments are doing is recognising the fact that the name has been changed—changes have to be made to other legislation to reflect the name change. This won't advance the interests of industry, it won't increase innovation and it won't prioritise scientific research in this country. Instead of substantive investment in Australia—in our ideas and in our innovation—the government creates cheap slogans and cosmetic spin. On the government's watch, what this spin cannot avoid us realising is that Australia has fallen three places to No. 23 on the Global Innovation Index. For example, their existing Entrepreneur Program has achieved little more than funnelling millions of dollars to multinational consulting firms.

Australia is home to many incredible companies and firms, but our innovative ideas languish with one of the lowest startup formation rates in the world. We've got to be more ambitious. We've got to commit ourselves to bring more great Australian ideas to the global market. At this point in time we have a Prime Minister whose big argument, when reflecting on, for example, the digital and tech innovation space, was that the country should adapt and embrace other people's ideas quicker, that this is the way that we will work better, faster and in much more efficient ways. Well, I would actually argue, and I think that a lot of people in the Australian innovation space would argue, that Australian ideas should be able to be championed on Australian soil and then projected into the international marketplace to make a difference elsewhere. The Prime Minister's great ambition is that we are the best consumers in an app store, rather than having the ideas on that app store that're taken up by others. That is probably the worst indictment of this government, that they think we will just be takers of other people's ideas, not makers of great ideas and see that develop in many other ways. We do need that to happen. We do need to see a lot more of the conversion of the ideas into reality.

We've had 60 or so reports on commercialisation that've languished. We had two more done by this government, and by different ministers—they weren't even talking to each other—on commercialisation. We had an industry minister do one report and an education minister do another. They were totally doing their own thing without even collaborating to ensure that we could deal with a long-running problem in innovation in this country. When you look on the Global Innovation Index pretty much every report says we have a lot of great people. The human capital element is very strong in this country. The conversion of the ideas into the concrete, commercialising them, is core. What we don't need is more reports. What we need is action. We don't need name changes. We don't need reports. We actually need to see changes in what's happening.

On some of the stuff that is working in this government's favour they don't want to support it. They had a report, for instance, that they commissioned into their own Industry Growth Centres that are thinking a lot about how to apply innovation within an industry context and deal with some of these issues. They won't release the report. We, as an opposition, have been calling for the government to release a report that says good things about their own initiative. That's an innovation in itself—that the opposition would be calling on the government to release a report that reflects well on themselves. They won't do it. Why? Because it runs counter to their ambition, or should I say their game plan, for those growth centres. They want to kill those growth centres off.

For example, the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre is supporting innovation in important areas like hydrogen storage systems, smart factory advancements, robotics, lithium battery development and production. They've been responsible for funding important advancements in COVID-19 testing—an area where the government's failed astoundingly—but the government doesn't want to fund them. Why? Because this is a government that wants to take money out of a successful program where the decisions get made by industry and they want to put it into their own grants program. In this case, the Modern Manufacturing Strategy that has got $1.5 billion that has been put there. The government wants the department—by that, remember when it's the department it's the minister. It's not the government or the bureaucracy; it's a political aspiration to ensure that money is diverted in the way they think works for their political advancement, not industry and national advancement. This is what's going on. They defund existing successful programs. They don't release the reports that say they're successful programs. They defund them. They pick up the money. They put it into a grant program so they can then spend in a way that they think works for their political interest.

For anyone who thinks I might be slightly cynical on this point, let's just go through the roll call: sports rorts, road rorts, regional funding rorts. We've had the way in which land has been disposed of—being sold to political donors. We've seen all this stuff happen continually.

Ms Templeman: Bushfire rorts!

Mr HUSIC: The bushfire rorts as well, as the member for Macquarie has rightly pointed out. This government has a track record of rorting that is an absolute national shame. They know it's bad, because they won't set up a national integrity commission to stop that kind of behaviour. After all the publicity on the way they have misused our taxpayer dollars, the embarrassment and the shame that has been heaped on them, you would think that they would learn the lesson. You would think that they would do differently. But what do they do? They go: 'No, we've got one better. We've done sports rorts, roads rorts, regional funding rorts and bushfire rorts. Now we're going to have manufacturing rorts, where we'll just spend money in that way.' This is terrible, and it undermines the faith people have in the way these vital government dollars could actually support industry evolution and the growth of manufacturing in this country, which has been under huge pressure.

When we went through the pandemic and we couldn't get the things that we thought Australia should have the capability to manufacture onshore, and when we realised the way in which global supply chains were letting us down, we thought: 'You know what? We're not just going to go back to normal; we'll do better. We'll actually build a modern manufacturing sector in this country that can deliver on a wide range of projects.' In the Labor Party we don't think that it should be just niche manufacturing. It should be, where we can, manufacturing at scale. We in the Labor Party believe in manufacturing, because the reality is that these sectors generate predominantly full-time, sustainable jobs, and they deliver value in the Australian context for the Australian economy here and beyond. They are very important to follow up.

The government have put forward $1.5 billion, but then they announced all these side programs that continually diminish the funding impact that the program has by continually slicing off small sections of that funding in such a way that we would raise questions as to whether or not the program will achieve its intended purpose at all. We think that the government's intent of having more discretion and more control over where innovation funding goes, instead of having industry peak bodies make decisions using their experience and expertise—we are very concerned about where things are headed in relation to that. It's very troubling knowing, as I said, this government's history of rorts. We have little faith that the extra cash will go into kickstarting the innovation ecosystem. Unfortunately, with this model, the likely outcome is that the money will sit there unadministered, and we've seen that at scale with the way, for instance, the government announces billions going into things like infrastructure investment and then, on an annual basis, there's a $1.2 billion underspend. We don't need the same thing happening in the innovation and industry space. We need to see, for instance, more of that lead into the support and the growth of the manufacturing sector in this country.

We would also hope that we could, in the middle or at the outset of a pandemic, see the manufacturing of mRNA vaccines onshore. That is manufacturing that would make a difference to Australian people. In New South Wales, people are genuinely worried about the prospect of a lockdown. Victoria has had to go through lockdowns as well, and other parts of the country are now shutting their borders to prevent travel, and we're going into, again, a period of enforced hibernation, because, understandably, governments want to protect the population from getting COVID and, in particular, the delta variant that has been going around. We need to be agile in responding to putting out vaccines that can best combat that variant of COVID.

Now, when we asked the industry department when we could expect to see domestic manufacturing of the vaccine, we were told it could take, if it were a greenfield site, up to four years. Bear in mind the previous industry minister said nine months ago that in nine months time we would be in a position to potentially announce the manufacture of mRNA vaccines in Australia within the space of 12 months. The new industry minister, I might say, is just marking time. This bloke's heart is not in this job. He is just marking time. Bear in mind we've had Minister Macfarlane, Minister Pyne, Minister Hunt, Minister Sinodinos, Minister Andrews and now Minister Porter—an average shelf life of 330 days, less than a year, in the job! This new minister reckons, in answers to questions put by the opposition during question time about domestic manufacturing and when we can expect to see it: 'It could be four years, but it could be 13 months. It could be anywhere between 13 months and four years.' This is not a small range. If it were between 13 months and 18 months, sure. But between 13 months and four years is when we can expect, potentially, onshore manufacture of mRNA vaccines, at a time when parts of the country are genuinely concerned about the prospect of a lockdown.

Again, it reminds us that this government had two jobs to do—vaccine rollout and national quarantine. On the vaccine rollout, they so fundamentally stuffed it up. The thing is that state governments get it too. It doesn't matter about the political hue of the government at the state level; both expected that the feds would step up on the vaccine rollout, and they didn't. They both expected that the states would see national quarantining being put forward. It didn't happen. On the manufacture of local vaccines: this government can't get its act together and can't tell us when, between 13 months and four years, we'll see domestic manufacture of COVID vaccines in this country that can cater to emerging variants, to protect the population of Australia. We just have guesswork being done. They are bungling securing the vaccine in the first place and manufacturing it in the second place. This is not good enough. And their big idea on innovation is a name change. That's all they'll do. They won't support and advance how to use innovation not only to protect the nation through the pandemic; they cannot put forward ideas on how to re-gear an economy that has been pummelled by the pandemic. In particular, they've got no idea about where the economic consequences of this pandemic affecting societies globally will go.

The government lurch from idea to idea. They don't provide a robust form of support for manufacturing in terms of their strategies. They get rid of other successful strategies that they have because they don't suit their political interests. They can't manufacture vaccine in this country in a way that our people would expect. And then they lurch to the next shiny thing in the biotech and medical space, thinking that it'll help and that this is an innovation they can import from overseas. Again, the Prime Minister thinks that the best thing that we can do for innovation in this country is copy someone else's.

So now we've got the next shiny thing—patent boxes, which is just the latest idea the Treasurer picked up on one of his trips over to the UK, when we could actually do that. He's brought it back and thinks that if we give this tax incentive it will kick start R&D in this space. Mind you, they wanted to rip out $2 billion from R&D. The innovation that they came up with in this space was to not do the funding cut. The innovation, if I can add, is for them to now spruik, 'We've put $2 billion into R&D because we're not going ahead with the cuts that we thought we'd do.' That's their big innovation! That's what they go around and spruik. And then, on top of that, they put forward a patent box idea. We in the opposition will genuinely leave our minds open to the patent box scheme that's been put forward—which, mind you, this government haven't actually stepped forward and given us details on, but let's see what they reckon works; let's see how their plan will make it work onshore. But we remain to be convinced on whether or not this will actually work, because patent boxes have not been universally embraced as a way to drive innovation in different countries. But we remain open; we will talk with industry on this and see what can be done. So, on those things, we think that the government does have a lot to explain as to whether or not that will also translate into something meaningful. Again, if we go through all of the innovations of this government and what they've put forward, they put forward equity crowdfunding to help finance new innovation, but we have no idea about how that's going. They put forward tax incentives that they thought would drive innovation, particularly early-stage innovation through angel investment, and we've seen angel investment contract for three consecutive years. They talk about employee share ownership schemes and reforms to them. They still haven't brought forward the legislation to prosecute those schemes. They've now announced that they'll put in patent boxes, but there's no detail about where that will go, and it's just embracing someone else's idea. They said they'd fund mRNA vaccine manufacture onshore. We don't know whether it's going to happen within 13 months or four years. We haven't seen that. We have a modern manufacturing fund that could only generate 79 jobs for $79 million in the first round of funding. So we've got a long way to go. We think innovation will be critical in terms of regearing and reimagining the economy. 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 jobs and economic growth generated from a robust innovation ecosystem; and

(2) condemns the Coalition Government for its continual failure to back Australian industry and innovation, particularly to deal with challenges arising from the pandemic".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Templeman: I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.

Mr HUSIC: Certainly, in our second reading amendment, whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, we note that the jobs and economic growth generated by a robust innovation ecosystem are important to the country. We also condemn the coalition for its continual failure to back Australian industry and innovation, particularly to deal with the challenges arising from the pandemic. The amendment has been seconded by my friend and colleague the member for Macquarie. We think that it's important to put that forward because this is a moment in time where we can use innovation to rethink the way that we work and to show that we back Australian ideas. We have faith in this country's heritage. We live on an isolated continent with a small population that has been separated from major supply lines in many times past, so we have had to think through the ways to get things done and we've had the people that have been able to find the ways.

But we do need to make sure that government regulations and laws in this country support that, that the funding is there to help back that, that the private sector is there to step up in greater part to believe in that, that our training systems build up our human capital to improve the quality of ideas and that we have a translation of that in a commercial sense for the benefit of the broader economy. I am moving my second reading amendment so that we can have that type of debate or that elements of the debate covered off in here. As I said, we think with the fact that we've got history in terms of ideas being translated into reality means we can do better. We also have the emergence of other developments, such as AI and robotics, so that on issues of national concern we could apply and improve the way that the economy is working. For example, if you look at agriculture, these huge labour shortages cannot be ignored, because they are affecting the productivity and performance of agriculture in this country. We know it can perform better and we should be applying ourselves to national problems like that. Clever people using AI and robotics in thinking about farm redesign could, for instance, find new ways for agriculture to be performed in the absence of labour at the time it's needed. That's the type of innovation where, if we applied ourselves, we might make a difference to communities in regions across the country. That's what should happen.

It's not going to come out of a name change. It is not going to occur because we inserted 'industry' in the name of the former Innovation and Science Australia. It will require government, business, academia and others to make it happen. Labor's got a positive agenda. I'll highlight in the moments I've got remaining that we have the National Reconstruction Fund of $15 billion to help drive the reimagining of Australian industry in this country. We've also announced a start-up plan that will provide $11,000 to university students working with university accelerators to create 2,000 new enterprises in this country that can tackle some of those national problems, either in the economic space or social impact enterprises that we think can make a difference to the quality of life in communities. We need imagination and dedication to deal with this. We don't need marketing and spin.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.