﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-08-14</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 14 August 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 29 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 19 August 2024. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 13 August 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 13 August 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 19 August 2024, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS TINK: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Limits on Immigration Detention) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS DANIEL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Broadcasting Services Act 1992</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Broadcasting Services Amendment (Prohibition of Gambling Advertisements) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR DUTTON: To present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR DUTTON: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS STEGGALL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the frequency of severe weather events is the dominant reason home insurance premiums are skyrocketing, fast becoming unaffordable and in turn, fuelling inflation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) severe weather events are already costing the Australian economy over $38 billion a year and this cost is predicted to rise to at least $73 billion per year by 2050 if climate change continues unmitigated;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) over 12 per cent of households are facing extreme insurance stress, paying more than four weeks of gross income to home insurance premiums, risking underinsurance of their properties;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) every $1 invested in climate adaptation measures can save up to $11 in disaster recovery; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Government continues to allocate significantly less funding to resilience and adaptation than to disaster response and recovery, with less than ten per cent of Australian homes being climate risk resilient; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) allocate funding to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Resilient Building Council to expand the home and business resilience ratings scheme to incentivise home adaptation measures and put downward pressure on insurance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) expand the Australian sustainable finance taxonomy to include adaptation, to unlock global capital for private sector led resilience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) include climate resilience and adaptation as a matter of priority in upcoming updates to the National Construction Code and require resilience for all government investments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) accelerate the development of a national standard for climate adapted planning controls; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) ensure equitable access to insurance by helping lower income households and communities facing home insurance stress and underinsurance in high risk areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Steggall</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MRS PHILLIPS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the vital role early childhood education and care (ECEC) educators and teachers play in supporting young children's early learning and development;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) properly valuing and recognising the ECEC profession—including through fair wages—is critical to reversing attrition and growing the workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paying ECEC workers fairly is a crucial step in charting the course to a truly universal ECEC system; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government's historic announcement for a two-year, 15 per cent ECEC worker retention payment for ECEC workers, phased in from December 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) one year on, the Government's cheaper child care reforms are delivering real cost of living relief to household budgets;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's child care inquiry found that out-of-pocket costs dropped 11 per cent following the introduction of the Government's cheaper child care measures; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government's ECEC worker retention payment will be tied to a commitment from early learning services to limit fee increases to 4.4 per cent, an important condition that will keep downward pressure on fees for Australian families; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) since the election, there are 860 more ECEC services, around 68,000 more children in ECEC, and around 30,000 more ECEC workers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) between 2018 and 2022, fees under the previous Government increased by 22.8 per cent compared to the OECD adjusted average of 6.2 per cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Phillips</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS PRICE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government's Play Our Way program:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) was announced 12 months ago, as a back-foot response to the Opposition's $250 million announcement for supporting community sporting infrastructure across the country;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) has left community sporting organisations in the lurch, with program applicants still unaware if they have been successful and frustrated by funding uncertainty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) was just more policy on the run from the Government, which has been proven by this significant, unexplained delay; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) stop prioritising photo opportunities over the real action needed to support sports participation in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) support the sporting infrastructure communities need as more young Australians are inspired to get out there and get active, and immediately provide an update on the Play Our Way program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Price</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS DANIEL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) early childhood education and care (ECEC) delivers benefits to children, families and the economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a universal ECEC system:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) means making quality services accessible to all children and families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) is an opportunity to unlock productivity and growth across the workforce and allow more women into the workforce if they want to work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) would address cost of living pressures, productivity, gender equality and give all children the best start in life;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) ECEC sets children up for life;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by the age of five, 90 per cent of a child's brain is fully developed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) children who attend quality early childhood education are twice as likely to reach their developmental targets once at school;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) children experiencing disadvantage and vulnerability—who are likely to benefit most from ECEC services—are less likely to attend ECEC;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the cost of ECEC in Australia is amongst the highest in OECD countries, representing a major cost of living pressure for many households; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) ECEC enables mothers, in particular, to maintain a connection to the labour force when children are very young and allows for increasing hours of work as children grow; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to commit to, and provide, a pathway and timeline towards universal early education and care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Daniel</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS BELYEA: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the popularity of the Government's Fee-Free TAFE policy, demonstrated by 500,000 enrolments since its commencement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that Fee-Free TAFE is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) driving enrolments in sectors with recognised skills shortages and securing a domestic workforce to deliver on current and future priorities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) giving Australians access to the skills they need to ensure they have meaningful, well-paid jobs, and career progression;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) helping to ease cost of living pressures to make training a real possibility for half a million Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) assisting the country's response to the biggest skills shortages we have faced in 50 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) supports the Government as it continues to invest in the Australian people by rolling out Fee-Free TAFE places in partnership with state and territory governments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Belyea</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR WOOD: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that the Government cut $50 million in the October 2022-2023 budget from Round 7 of the Safer Communities Fund for early intervention high-risk youth programs, which was funded but not announced in the March 2022-23 budget; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the recent surge in youth crime in Victoria and Queensland, in particular requires an urgent and dedicated response from the Commonwealth Government to address and combat this serious issue, while the Victorian Government must reconsider its stance on weak youth bail laws and prioritise the safety of its citizens;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the Government for abandoning young Australians by scrapping this funding;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to reinstate funding to provide for much-needed capital to organisations working with high-risk youth;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) congratulates the previous Government for investing $300 million in the Safer Communities Fund to keep local communities safer; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) commends the Opposition for committing to working with states and territories in the future to develop uniform knife laws as a significant step towards ensuring the safety and security of all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Wood</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 DR ANANDA-RAJAH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government has made medicines cheaper by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) freezing the price of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines in the 2024-25 budget;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) delivering the largest price reduction in the 75-year history of the PBS; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) introducing 60-day prescriptions for 184 common medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that since 1 July 2022, the Government has approved additional funding for 227 new and amended listings on the PBS, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor) which treats children with cystic fibrosis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) selumetinib (koselugo) which treats symptomatic, inoperable benign nerve tumours in children two years old and over with neurofibromatosis type 1; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) patisiran (onpattro) which treats hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that five million Australians have saved more than $456 million on cheaper prescriptions since January 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes the Opposition's record of making medicines more expensive and its opposition to the Government's policies to make medicines cheaper for all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Ananda-Rajah</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR BOYCE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Great Artesian Basin:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is unique, only one of its kind in the world;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is the world's largest underground potable water source;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) covers 22 per cent of the area of Australia, 79 per cent of Queensland and 1.7 million square kilometres;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) is estimated to carry 65,000 cubic kilometres of water;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) is a vital resource for the agricultural industry and regional communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) supports significant Indigenous cultural values; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) sustains a range of groundwater-dependent ecosystems; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to protect Australia's water aquifers and oppose Glencore's CTSCo Project to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2 hypercritical fluid) into the Great Artesian Basin.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 3 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Boyce</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS TEMPLEMAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the 2024-25 budget provided significant new investment in Australia's arts and cultural sector, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) $115.2 million over four years to support the long-term financial sustainability of the national arts training organisations and $36.4 million of indexed and ongoing funding from 2028-29 (including the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Australian Film, Television and Radio School, NAISDA Dance College, Flying Fruit Fly Circus, Australian Ballet School, National Institute of Circus Arts, Australian National Academy of Music and the Australian Youth Orchestra);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) $14.5 million to support the production of Australian children's screen content, recognising the importance of Australian children seeing themselves reflected in the stories they watch;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) $9.3 million to expand and enhance the National Film and Sound Archive's capacity to digitise audio-visual materials at risk of irreversible degradation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) $5.2 million to expand and develop the Canberra Symphony Orchestra and Darwin Symphony Orchestra;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) these investments sustain the momentum that the national cultural policy, Revive has created in rebuilding Australia's cultural sector and safeguarding our cultural heritage; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the Government is delivering transformative new investment to the cultural sector after a decade of neglect and cuts by the previous Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 28 May 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Templeman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR VIOLI: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that Australian small businesses are at breaking point and are being failed by the Government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) under this Government, a record number of Australian businesses have become insolvent in the most recent financial year, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 4,635 businesses in New South Wales;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) 2,863 businesses in Victoria;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) 2,036 businesses in Queensland;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) 733 businesses in Western Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) 194 businesses in the Australian Capital Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) 94 businesses in Tasmania; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) 43 businesses in the Northern Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this Government is now the worst government for Australian business on record, having surpassed the 10,757 businesses collapsing under the Government of 2011-12; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australian small businesses could survive a once-in-a-century pandemic but cannot survive the disastrous policies of this Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">50 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Violi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MS MASCARENHAS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive (CMPTI) will help build Australia's critical minerals industry by encouraging processing onshore and creating secure jobs in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Leader of Opposition says one thing about the CMPTI on the west coast and another on the east coast; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Shadow Treasurer is opposed to the CMPTI and has turned his back on the resources sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Mascarenhas</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 MR WALLACE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that Australia and the world face the gravest geopolitical instability since the end of World War II;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recalls that foreign interference remains the greatest immediate threat to Australia's sovereignty and security;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and the so-called axis of resistance continues to perpetrate malicious activities against critical infrastructure, public and private companies, agencies and democratic institutions across the world, including in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) with concern that despite the urgent national security threats facing the nation, the Government has failed to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) develop and deliver space defence and industry strategy, instead slashing funding for critical programs and global partnerships;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) develop and deliver a comprehensive border security strategy, instead presiding over the worst border crisis since it was last in government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) engage industry to develop and deliver a strategy to secure and strengthen the supply of fuel, food, water, pharmaceuticals, industrial materials and critical minerals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) quickly and adequately address the risks and opportunities associated with artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and other emerging technologies aligned with our Australia-United Kingdom-United States pillars;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to expeditiously develop and implement a comprehensive national security strategy which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) engages all levels of government, all areas of the public and private sector, and all members of the public through consultation and review;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) addresses the issues of security in food, water, fuel, pharmaceuticals, industrial materials, critical minerals, and technology;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) addresses the issues of skilled workforce development and recruitment, digital literacy and online safety, cyber security, and resilience in homes, businesses, communities, agencies and institutions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) addresses issues highlighted in the broad and public consultation process and delineated in a national security strategy consultation paper and roadmap; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) commences no later than January 2027; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further acknowledges and pays tribute to the late Senator Jim Molan AO DSC for his significant work on, and advocacy for, a 'grand strategy' or 'nation security strategy' to this end.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 May 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Wallace</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 MR PERRETT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Brisbane 2032 Olympics and Paralympics will produce extensive beneficial impacts for Queensland and the nation, including economic, infrastructure, cultural, social, and environmental legacies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the local, state and Commonwealth governments have made a considerable effort to plan and prepare according to the International Olympic Committee's new norms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the diligence in planning for a lasting beneficial legacy for Brisbane, Queensland, and our nation from hosting the Olympic and Paralympic events.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 28 May 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SPORT: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms Price—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government's Play Our Way program:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) was announced 12 months ago, as a back-foot response to the Opposition's $250 million announcement for supporting community sporting infrastructure across the country;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) has left community sporting organisations in the lurch, with program applicants still unaware if they have been successful and frustrated by funding uncertainty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) was just more policy on the run from the Government, which has been proven by this significant, unexplained delay; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) stop prioritising photo opportunities over the real action needed to support sports participation in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) support the sporting infrastructure communities need as more young Australians are inspired to get out there and get active, and immediately provide an update on the Play Our Way program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 August 2024</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVILEGE</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>PRIVILEGE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday 12 August, the honourable member for Bruce raised a matter of privilege in connection with a concerns notice he received from lawyers acting on behalf of Mr John Margerison.</para>
<para>The basis of the member's complaint is that the concerns notice foreshadows legal action for defamation based on the material contained in a number of publications, much or all of which the member submits is likely to be covered by parliamentary privilege. The member asks that the House express a view on this matter and resolve to take action to assert the protection of parliamentary privilege, should court proceedings be commenced.</para>
<para>The member for Bruce also submits that the threat of legal action in the concerns notice may constitute a contempt of this House by way of improper interference with the free exercise of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's authority or functions, and the free exercise of his duties as a member and chair of the committee.</para>
<para>Section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act provides protections for 'proceedings in parliament', which:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… means all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee …</para></quote>
<para>It is acknowledged that the courts have a role in interpreting what is included in 'proceedings in parliament', in particular the scope of the term 'for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House.'</para>
<para>I have considered the statement by the member for Bruce, and the material he presented in support of it. I am satisfied that the member has raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. While the member for Bruce did not present the concerns notice itself, he presented what he described as 'copies of the publications referred to in the concerns notice' which include: a media release of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; two Twitter/X posts in the name of the member for Bruce; four Facebook posts in the name of the member for Bruce; and one YouTube video in the name of the member for Bruce. Without the concerns notice itself to examine, I accept the member's description of it as threatening legal action against him should he not retract the publications and make an apology.</para>
<para>The question of whether the publication of material is likely to attract parliamentary privilege is clearer in some cases than in others. Whether publications such as social media posts referring to parliamentary proceedings would attract any level of protection has not been determined. However, a properly authorised media release by a parliamentary committee could reasonably be considered to be part of the committee's business, and therefore be considered proceedings in parliament.</para>
<para>Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either house of our parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of a house in the discharge of his or her duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt. Threatening a member with legal action, at least partly on the basis of the business of a parliamentary committee in the publishing of an authorised media release could possibly, therefore, be classified as a contempt.</para>
<para>Based on my careful consideration of all the information available to me, I am satisfied that where the committee's media release is concerned a prima facie case has been made out; I am therefore willing to give precedence to a motion concerning privilege or contempt, referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.</para>
<para>As members would be aware, and as <inline font-style="italic">House of Representatives </inline><inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">ractice</inline> makes clear:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An opinion by the Speaker that a prima facie case has been made out does not imply a conclusion that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred …</para></quote>
<para>In giving precedence for a motion to be moved, I am simply allowing the House the opportunity to consider a motion immediately, and debate and decide on whether the matter should be referred to the committee for inquiry and report to the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>9</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Privileges and Members' Interests Committee</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests—whether:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the concerns notice issued to the Member for Bruce on behalf of Mr John Margerison foreshadows court proceedings that could not be pursued without breaching parliamentary privilege, such that the House should express a view on this matter, and intervene if court proceedings are commenced, in order to protect parliamentary privilege and the ability of this House and its members to undertake their work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the threat of this legal action may constitute a contempt of this House by way of improper interference with the free exercise of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's authority or functions and of the Member for Bruce's duties as a Member and as the Chair of the Committee, and may be seen to set a precedent if not addressed by the House.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Grogan has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that Senator Brown has been appointed a member of the committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7227" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Background</para>
<para>This bill makes amendments to the Public Service Act 1999(Cth) to clarify the Australian Public Service Commissioner's powers with respect to conducting inquiries into potential breaches of the code of conduct by former agency heads.</para>
<para>The Public Service Act establishes a code of conduct that applies to APS employees and to agency heads. It includes requirements for APS employees and agency heads to, amongst other things, behave with honesty and integrity, to act with care and diligence, and to treat everyone with respect and courtesy.</para>
<para>The APS Code of Conduct is a cornerstone of an efficient, effective and apolitical Australian Public Service that upholds APS values and acts with integrity, accountability, and in the national interest. The commissioner's powers under the Public Service Act are essential to safeguarding this standard and maintaining public confidence in the vital institution that is the Australian Public Service.</para>
<para>The Public Service Act expressly allows for the APS Commissioner to inquire into and determine whether a current or former APS employee has breached the code of conduct.</para>
<para>The act also expressly allows the APS Commissioner to inquire into whether a current agency head has breached the code of conduct.</para>
<para>The act further gives the APS Commissioner the function of reviewing, and reporting on, any matter referred to the commissioner by the Public Service minister.</para>
<para>This bill will amend the act to explicitly provide that the APS Commissioner has the power to inquire into and determine whether current and former agency heads have breached the code of conduct.</para>
<para>This will mean that the commissioner has clear powers to hold current and former agency heads to account for breaches of the code of conduct while they are an agency head.</para>
<para>Bill overview</para>
<para>Section 14(1) of the Public Service Act makes it clear that agency heads are bound by the code of conduct in the same way as other Australian public servants. It is proper that a process is available to inquire into and determine whether a current or former agency head has complied with the code of conduct. These amendments, which will ensure the accountability of our most senior officials, are in line with the public's expectations.</para>
<para>This bill makes it clear that the APS Commissioner's power to inquire into and determine whether an agency head has breached the code of conduct, for actions taken while they were an agency head, is not extinguished when an agency head leaves the Australian Public Service.</para>
<para>The code of conduct already applies to agency heads. This bill makes no changes to the code of conduct and it does not amend the standards of behaviour required of current agency heads. The effect of the bill is to ensure current and former agency heads are accountable for their conduct while they are an agency head, assessed at the standard that applies to them in that role. These amendments will extend the same accountability to current and former agency heads as that which already applies to APS employees.</para>
<para>The effect of these amendments is to enable the commissioner to inquire into and make determinations about the conduct of current and former agency heads. Noting former agency heads were bound by the code of conduct at the time they were in the agency head role, it is appropriate that these amendments empower the APS Commissioner to inquire into conduct that occurred at that time, including conduct that predates this bill.</para>
<para>The bill also clarifies that the APS Commissioner has the power to make a determination on the outcome of a code of conduct inquiry into a current or former agency head.</para>
<para>The catalyst for these amendments has been inquiries into potential breaches of the code of conduct by current and former public servants, including former agency heads, for their role in the design and delivery of the robodebt scheme. As the inquiries progressed, claims were made that alleged breaches of the code of conduct by former agency heads could not be investigated—and a determination of a breach could not be made—in the absence of express provisions in the Public Service Act<inline font-style="italic">. </inline></para>
<para>To ensure full accountability, the government is taking this step to put beyond doubt the Australian Public Service Commissioner's authority to investigate and make determinations with respect to former agency heads under the Public Service Act.</para>
<para>The bill also ensures that the employment status of a current or former agency head when a code of conduct inquiry is underway has no impact on the powers of the commissioner to conduct and finalise an inquiry and make a determination. The amendments will ensure that an agency head who resigns or retires during an inquiry into their conduct, or whose term of appointment otherwise concludes before the inquiry has been completed, can be held accountable for their conduct while they were an agency head.</para>
<para>The bill provides that matters referred to the commissioner under section 41(2)(k) on or after 7 July 2023, regarding a potential breach of the code of conduct by a current or former agency head, are matters under section 41(2)(m) of the act. The bill also provides that information and documents collected by the commissioner prior to the amendments continue to be available to enable these matters to be finalised as expeditiously as possible.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>We expect the highest standards of conduct from those in whom we place the highest levels of public trust. These amendments ensure the commissioner has clear power to investigate breaches of the APS Code of Conduct by an agency head including where and after an agency head resigns from the Public Service. This legislation will ensure that senior public servants are clearly accountable for their actions as Public Service leaders, even after leaving their roles.</para>
<para>The bill removes ambiguity about the commissioner's powers to investigate former agency heads and, with it, the prospect of individuals avoiding accountability through legal technicalities. These amendments underscore the Australian government's agenda to restore integrity, trust and faith in a stronger Public Service.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Report 218: Fiji status of forces; UK accession CPTPP; IPEF; ILO 191</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' <inline font-style="italic">Report 218: Fiji status of forces; UK accession CPTPP; IPEF; ILO 191</inline>. The report focuses on the JSCOT inquiries into four major treaty actions: the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Fiji on Cooperation in the Field of Defence and the Status of Visiting Forces; the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and associated side-letters; the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement relating to Supply Chain Resilience; and, finally, the International Labour Organization Convention No. 191: Safe and Healthy Working Environment (Consequential Amendments) Convention.</para>
<para>The Fiji status of forces treaty builds on Australia's mutually beneficial relationship with Fiji through enabling more frequent and sophisticated defence cooperation between the two countries. This agreement enables Australia and Fiji to work together on maritime security issues, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, peacekeeping operations, co-deployments, and training of military personnel. At a public hearing, issues relating to the defence relationship between Fiji and Australia, the relationship between this agreement and other agreements between the two countries, sovereignty, human rights, and territorial integrity were raised, with the committee satisfied that these issues have been addressed.</para>
<para>The UK accession to the CPTPP treaty enables the UK to accede to one of the world's most comprehensive free trade agreements. As Australia already has a strong free trade agreement with the UK, this treaty provides modest gains to Australia, but further strengthens the relationship between the two countries. After hearing about issues related to the value of the CPTPP, services, supply chain benefits, professional mobility and strategic benefits, the committee believes that the UK accession to the CPTPP is in the national interests of Australia.</para>
<para>The IPEF aims to enhance the collaboration to prevent, mitigate and prepare for supply chain disruptions within the Indo-Pacific. The agreement increases Australia's supply chain resilience by establishing international policy levers, sending market signals on diversification, promoting an international evidence based approach, and ensuring a systemic and coordinated approach to disruptions. Having experienced the impact of supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the committee is supportive of the IPEF's collaborative approach to the minimisation of future vulnerabilities and mitigation of potential risks.</para>
<para>The final treaty before us is the ILO 191, which amends the ILO conventions and protocols to ensure the right to a safe and healthy work environment is reflected in existing ILO instruments. The ILO 191 demonstrates Australia's commitment to workplace health and safety as a fundamental principle and right at work. Australia has a strong reputation within the Asia-Pacific with respect to supporting and advocating for workplace health and safety matters, and ratifying this treaty ensures that our reputation is maintained. The committee supports majority treaty action considered in the report and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>11</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7219" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7223" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I am proud to speak in support of the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. This bill is a major step in implementing the government's Future Made in Australia vision to deliver our country's next generation of prosperity. A Future Made in Australia is a proactive agenda. It's about creating new jobs and new opportunities for every part of our country, from the cities to regional and remote areas, by maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero and securing Australia's place in a changing global, economic and strategic landscape. It will help Australia build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy, powered by renewable energy. It will create more secure well-paid jobs and encourage and facilitate the private sector investment required to make Australia an indispensable part of the global net zero economy.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is investing in a Future Made in Australia to unlock private investment in future industries and bring new jobs and opportunities to communities across the country. As the Treasurer was reported saying in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The biggest part of our plan is tax breaks, because a Future Made in Australia is all about attracting private investment—not replacing it.</para></quote>
<para>We know it's possible because it's already happening. Solar panels are being made with Australian minerals, and Australian research is leading to breakthroughs in medicine and health. If we don't act now to shape the future of our great nation, other countries will shape our future for us.</para>
<para>The coalition is unfortunately opposing this bill and the Greens are playing possum. I implore the Liberals and the Greens to put politics aside and vote for this bill in the national interest. We want more things made here. We want Australians making those things. We want Australians having more control over their own future and more economic security.</para>
<para>This bill is all about realising Australia's genuine natural advantages and recognising that our future growth prospects lie at the intersection of our industrial, resources, skills and energy bases and our attractiveness as an investment destination. The bill and omnibus bill deliver on key elements of the government's Future Made in Australia plan announced by the government in the 2024-25 budget. They impose rigor on government decision-making and help give investors the clarity and certainty they need to invest and unlock growth in our economy.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 includes three key components. It embeds the government's new national interest framework to help identify where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage in the net zero economy or where we have an economic security and resilience imperative. It establishes a robust, effective assessment process to help improve understanding of how government can best leverage private investment in areas of the economy aligned with the framework and help inform rigorous government decision-making. And it defines a set of community benefit principles to ensure that the benefits of a Future Made in Australia support, and the private sector investment enables, flow to local communities, workers and businesses.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 contains amendments to implement key Future Made in Australia initiatives announced in the budget. These include enabling Export Finance Australia to make domestically focused investments under the National Interest Account in alignment with the National Interest Framework. It safeguards $6 billion in funding for arenas, renewables and related priorities, giving industry and investors certainty to deliver sizable, long-lasting projects. And it sets up arrangements for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund to accelerate innovative technology deployment in priority sectors and makes necessary adjustments to the governance arrangements of ARENA. Legislation covering additional elements of the Future Made in Australia plan, including production tax credits and a single front door for investments, will be brought forward in future sittings.</para>
<para>This Labor government's vision for a Future Made in Australia is already becoming reality and goes well beyond the strict remits of this bill. We are building infrastructure and support for our manufacturing jobs in the regions to aid them on the journey towards stronger economic security. Our Powering the Regions program offers a big funding boost for clean energy and emissions reduction projects at heavy industrial sites around the country. Earlier this year the Minister for Climate Change and Energy visited Railton in my electorate to announce a $330 million investment in nine projects, four of them in Tasmania, to keep Australian industry not just surviving but thriving as demand for low-emissions products grows around the world. Cement Australia's facility in Railton is more than 100 years old, and funding of $52.9 million will upgrade its kiln and increase the use of alternative fuels, such as waste, to reduce emissions.</para>
<para>Industries like cement, alumina, mining, iron and steel processing, chemicals manufacturing, and food processing are all critical, not just to Australia's past but to our future, which is why we want to invest in them for the long term. Investment in these projects will cut 830,000 tonnes of emissions every year. That's equivalent to taking every single one of Tasmania's cars and trucks off the roads. And our program of investing in infrastructure, strategic transport and net zero will set up our nation and our people for a more prosperous and sustainable future. This government is investing $80 million in the Lyell Highway, which connects the northern Hobart suburbs to the ever-growing Derwent Valley. It's another example of what we're doing to connect our regions. And we've only just started. I'm proud that Tasmanians will play their part in our vision to build a stronger Australia and that we will not forget them as those opposite tend to do.</para>
<para>I was dismayed to hear the comments on this bill by the member for Mallee last night, deriding the development of green hydrogen industries—something the former government supported, by the way. Hydrogen plays a major part in this nation's future, particularly in northern Tasmania. So I was very disappointed to hear the comments from the member for Mallee.</para>
<para>The Labor government's proactive approach to a Future Made in Australia is a far cry from the Liberals' nuclear plan, as they scramble to find a difference in an election year. The coalition's 'future made in plutonium' plan claims that the first two of its reactors can be operational by 2037, a time frame that independent energy experts like the CSIRO have said would not be possible and would cost around $100 billion in taxpayer money. And they have the nerve to accuse this government of unnecessary spending!</para>
<para>I go to the comments of the member for Hume in his remarks to the House last night on this: 'You cannot run an aluminium smelter unless you have affordable, reliable energy. It's the same with an aluminium refinery and with any metals processing or food processing. Affordable, reliable energy is not negotiable.' We agree with that comment from the member for Hume. It's not often that you'll find those of us on this side of the House agreeing with anything the member for Hume has to say, but we agree with that comment. But his idea of affordable, reliable energy is to back in a nuclear plan for seven reactors that is totally uncosted.</para>
<para>The coalition have already said that every single dollar for nuclear energy will be coming from the government—government controlled nuclear reactors and government-paid-for nuclear reactors. They're going to ride roughshod over local communities. The leader of the National Party has said this is part of their plan. There'll be no consultation with local communities. Those seven sites in Australia are getting a nuclear reactor under the coalition come hell or high water. Too bad if you don't want it. Their plan for supposedly affordable and supposedly reliable energy is to back in a nuclear plan that won't be here for decades and that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars—every cent of it from the taxpayer. It's laughable. Absolutely laughable.</para>
<para>There are so many questions that have been left unanswered by those opposite as we stare down the barrel in a few months of going to an election. They still have not provided details on this critical point of how they seek to provide energy security to this country. The Labor government's plan is well mapped out and is there for everyone to see. It's the plan we took to the election. It's the plan we are delivering in government if only we were not being stopped and delayed by an unholy alliance of those opposite and the Greens on the crossbench.</para>
<para>The fact is the Liberal plan—you can't even really call it a plan—the Liberal thought bubble for nuclear lacks detail, is divisive and will cost at least twice as much as the renewable plan that the government is bringing forward for Australia. Under the Liberals, Australians' power bills will go nuclear. They won't come down; they will go absolutely nuclear.</para>
<para>My argument about nuclear is not an argument about the science. Clearly nuclear works, but the economics don't work for Australia. The time to go nuclear in this country would have been at least, if not more than, 10 years ago. But it didn't happen. Certainly during the coalition's time in office they never once raised it as a viable option. They had 10 years to bring forward and did nothing.</para>
<para>By contrast, renewable technology has come a long way, and Australia is a leader in it. Australia has the best natural energy resources in the world. To exploit what renewable energy has to offer has been shown in my home state of Tasmania. We've had hydropower in my state for a century. It works. The proof is in the pudding. Yet those opposite at every turn will deride renewable energy and the great benefits it can bring to this country. Instead they will pursue their nuclear fantasy, and every Australian will suffer as a result.</para>
<para>The golden opportunity in front of us as a parliament will disappear if we don't take the steps to support this bill's passage through this parliament. The Australian people have already suffered enough through a decade of denial and delay under those opposite, and if the coalition had their way there'd be another wasted decade ahead going down a nuclear road to nowhere. This government has chosen a better path—a path to prosperity, a path backed by evidence and supported by science and a path that will be rigorously interrogated and transparently explained to the Australian people. It's a path that uplifts all Australians of every community, not just some. It's a path that leads to a future made right here in Australia.</para>
<para>This is the biggest pro-manufacturing package in this country's history. But what it's going to require to deliver it is Australians working together, including our government, the state and territory governments, councils, big business, small business, universities, research centres, trade unions, workers and everybody else working together in the national interest for a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>The world is moving towards renewable energy. It's not just governments, it's businesses as well. The private sector is moving towards renewable energy and we are the sunniest, windiest continent on earth. It's time we put that to work. The world is changing with or without Australia, and the time to act is now. If we don't shape our own future, others will shape it for us. It's time to invest in a better future for all Australians to fund the apprenticeships, create opportunities in our TAFEs and universities, build the infrastructure and attract new investment that will boost industry and back new ideas. I proudly commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A constituent recently visited my office sharing with me the challenges of his manufacturing business in producing tahini. Tahini, for those who don't know, is a Middle Eastern condiment that is served with many dishes from the region. It's made by grinding toasted, hulled sesame seeds to create a creamy smooth paste, which I'm sure many members in this chamber have experienced and tasted. Jamal Elishe, the owner of JR Food Products, shared how difficult it is for his business to grow. He doesn't access government support and wasn't aware that he could.</para>
<para>The challenge for him growing his business locally and internationally is that Australia is importing so much tahini from the Middle East. This simple yet popular Middle Eastern sauce could be freshly made and should have a shelf life of nine months, not the two years that most of the products from overseas are stamped with when they reach our market shelves. Jamal believes the standard of his Australian made product is of high quality because he has to meet the standards set here. However, it's difficult to compete with overseas imported tahini.</para>
<para>We've been hearing and talking about Future Made in Australia here in this chamber. This small manufacturing business is an example of the potential for Australian products to be made here for the future of Australia and to grow our economy, which many members have been alluding to for the last few days, but what support is there for small manufacturing businesses like Jamal's? How can the government assist small food manufacturing businesses with their Future Made in Australia policy?</para>
<para>The government announced this policy earlier with a $1 billion publicly funded initiative to establish an entire solar supply chain in Australia and spun it as a step towards creating a manufacturing base for solar products. But this needs to be questioned. Is such a move prudent or, rather, a waste of funds that could be used elsewhere, such as in food manufacturing? All our current domestic solar efforts are just assembly lines for—guess what—Chinese products. That is not manufacturing. To truly manufacture solar panels, we would need to build an entire solar panel manufacturing value chain or at least meaningful parts thereof, making or participating in the making of polysilicon, wafers and cells and then ultimately assembling the final Australian made panels.</para>
<para>To establish such industrial capability, one would need to invest not just $1 billion but, rather, $10 billion to $20 billion at least. Even then, it would by no means be assured that such capability would be able to stand up against Chinese capabilities and find enough paying customers. The harsh reality is that China leads this sector not only with low costs but high-quality products that are demanded by economically acting customers and that make ends meet. China's solar industry is supported by a robust infrastructure and a large trained workforce. Their total solar investments go into the many hundreds of billions of dollars, with established worldwide sales channels and over 100,000 R&D staff and leadership in all elements of the entire supply chain.</para>
<para>Who do we think we are now in wanting to eventually compete with a measly $1 billion against this established world leader, who already brought Korean, European and US domestic solar manufacturing to their knees? Therefore, I fear that this could end up just being a PR exercise if we don't ensure that it's actually implementable and delivers for small Australian manufacturing businesses.</para>
<para>Let me remind the members of this chamber that my great community of Fowler is the heart of manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing employs 40 per cent of the population in Fowler, compared to about six per cent of Australia's workforce in this sector. Therefore, my community takes manufacturing seriously as it impacts the livelihood of many in Fowler, as in the case of Jamal Elishe and his tahini product.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 has grand aspirations, stimulating the economy with renewable energy manufacturing, promising more secure jobs and even transitioning to a net zero economy. But, as I said, to establish such industrial capability one would need to invest not just $1 billion but rather $10 billion to $20 billion at least. Even then, it is by no means assured that such capability would be able to stand against China's capabilities.</para>
<para>Let's get real. The last few years have been very challenging for all Australians, especially those in low-income areas like my electorate of Fowler. I recently held my second bring-your-bill day, and over 200 people showed up, sharing their struggles with the unaffordable cost of living. Many have lost their jobs, homes and businesses, struggling to keep up with the aftermath of COVID-19, spiking inflation and the lack of affordable housing. Our economy continues to stagnate, and people live with uncertainties. What will help them and all of us now is economic prosperity. So I'm all for a new plan for the future of Australia, but only if it delivers for working Australians—the ones who actually hold up our economy. This new plan is costing $22.7 billion of taxpayers' money. There's no room for error. We can't afford any more expensive mistakes if we are to combat inflation and stimulate growth.</para>
<para>The bill introduces the National Interest Framework, giving the government power to identify and invest in projects of national interest. This means that the government will facilitate private investments to meet these projects of national interest. Priority interest industries will be identified under two streams: the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. The net zero transformation stream will be focused on sectors that make a substantial contribution to achieving net zero, whilst the economic resilience and security stream will centralise on sectors critical to our resilience that need support to unlock private investment.</para>
<para>To obtain Future Made in Australia support, businesses must meet community benefit principles of promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid, have good conditions and produce more skilled and inclusive workforces that invest in training and skills development and engage collaboratively in achieving positive outcomes for local communities. Those are lofty ambitions, but will small businesses, especially those in Fowler, actually understand what they need to do to qualify for the Future Made in Australia support? Will they even meet the community benefit principles? Will Jamal Elishe meet the community benefit principles with his food production? Do governments have a good track record of knowing how to run or advise businesses or have an understanding of our diverse businesses in this country run by diverse communities?</para>
<para>My concern is that Future Made in Australia will exclude small businesses, like Jamal Elishe's, from obtaining support due to how broad and vague these principles are, especially those of non-English-speaking backgrounds. Family owned manufacturing businesses of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are already struggling to navigate the existing legislative frameworks for compliance. I understand that the National Interest Framework goal is to identify sectors that can contribute significantly to emissions reduction and spot areas where Australia could have a sustained comparative advantage, but what role would it play in uplifting the small and local manufacturers already operating to ensure economic resilience and security at the community level?</para>
<para>The government must consult and engage with small manufacturing businesses, especially in areas with high migrant and refugee populations like Fowler, to understand their challenges in navigating through the current industrial relations system, let alone the proposed changes. This engagement will certainly give government and its bureaucracies insights on how to best apply the community benefit principles and to issue guidelines to ensure that these communities have equitable access to the support they need to scale. As it currently stands, the sector assessments may not explicitly consider the unique contributions and challenges of small and local manufacturers within these communities. There is a need for the inclusion of criteria within sector assessments that recognise and evaluate the role of small manufacturers in contributing to the Australian economy.</para>
<para>One of the major components of this bill is the National Reconstruction Fund. This $15 billion fund was announced two years ago, and yet, for reasons I have highlighted in another speech, not one dollar of this made it out to small businesses. The NRF has made a comeback under the Future Made in Australia agenda, and the government is expecting us to hope for better outcomes. The lesson of the NRF failure was that those assessing applications had very narrow expertise and experience. They were mainly finance people. This was of no help when business operators involved in food manufacturing, the tech industry and others made applications. It essentially became the same discussion they would have with their own banks. Simply rolling the NRF into the Future Made in Australia plan, with similarly vague or even scant reference to the tactics of how business can apply, and without a pledge for the reviewing committee to be more widely experienced, will result in the same dismal outcome as the NRF.</para>
<para>I worry about the government's ability when it comes to involvement in the renewable industry. I understand that it may be a no-brainer for the government to invest in the renewable energy sector for infrastructure renewal and economic prosperity. We hope that Australians can expect more job opportunities as a result. I support the intention, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We do need to better include small businesses in the big picture. If the bill primarily focuses on larger manufacturing entities and does not provide specific measures to support small and local manufacturers then it fails to address the needs of a vital segment of the industry that is prevalent in Fowler. We are being pushed with the buy-local narrative, but this may be counterproductive and not the whole truth of the process or outcome. To buy local, we must assist businesses like Jamal Elishe to grow and survive.</para>
<para>In the case of solar, we need to invest in the production of the polysilicon wafers and cells required for Australian-made solar panels, for example. We all know that currently there are cheaper solar panels from China that are readily available to meet the net zero objective. How will the government ensure that we can compete in this market?</para>
<para>The bill wants to use public investment to unlock private investments that will act in the national interest, but there is a risk that these investments will prioritise and benefit only larger projects and corporations. This has the potential to overlook the unique challenges faced by small manufacturers and to allow opportunities that they offer to wither. I would like to see the bill amended to more explicitly cater for small businesses, such as a dollar amount allocated to them, so that they don't get left out in the cold as they were under the former NRF approach. I am all for revitalising the manufacturing industry in Australia. If we can do this by incentivising small businesses within clean industries, all the better, but I caution the government: if this leaves small manufacturers out in the cold, like Jamal Elishe, many businesses will fail and the future, rather than being made in Australia, may be quite bleak.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Future Made in Australia Bill. This great southern land is very fortunate. We have the oldest past and the brightest future. We have unparalleled natural resources, a thriving business sector, a diverse economy, a stable government, a skilled and willing workforce and strong trading relationships. With this bill the Albanese Labor government is harnessing these advantages to promote jobs, security, and prosperity for all Australians in this rapidly changing world.</para>
<para>The world is changing owing to a combination of factors—partly because of the transformation of industries in the digital age, complex economies and even our own lifestyles as we transition to net zero. It is also because of the challenging and nuanced strategic landscape that we live in. Right now, not too far to the north of us, we are seeing the largest literary buildup occurring since World War II. However, within this time of change there are opportunities, and A Future Made in Australia ensures that we meet these generational opportunities head-on rather than retreating from change. A Future Made in Australia is a big plan for a big country. It's visionary and it's forward-thinking. It focuses on private investment to drive the development and growth of future industries, accompanied by secure and well-paying jobs all around the country. It demands rigour in government decision-making, which will give investors confidence and clarity. While the plan is comprehensive, it also has a simple aim: to make the most of our resources—the resources that belong to the Australian people—and to make things here. Fundamentally, A Future Made in Australia is an economic action plan for a more prosperous, secure and independent future for all Australians. Who could not get on board?</para>
<para>This planning positions us to build a more resilient and diversified economy—one that is powered by renewable energy. It drives new industries, critical minerals processing, green metals, clean energy technologies and low-carbon liquid fuels. This bill sets out the steps we need to take to achieve a future made in Australia as announced by the Treasurer in this year's budget and as endorsed by the Australian people at the last election.</para>
<para>The bill the parliament is debating has three overarching elements. The first is to ensure that the new National Interest Framework is the foundation for the sector's growth moving forward. It will identify where Australia has a comparative advantage in the net zero economy or where an economic security imperative exist. Legislating the framework will provide the investment sector with clarity and confidence. A key part of the framework is the establishment of a set of community benefit principles, which is the second key component. These community benefit principles make sure that investments work for local communities, for local businesses, for local workers. This reflects Labor's commitment to positively navigating the economic and societal changes on the way to net zero so that all Australians are not only brought along on the journey but benefit as well. This requires a suite of measures, starting with community engagement and collaboration. It is crucial that local communities such as First Nations communities and those directly affect by the transition to net zero are given feedback and consultation opportunities.</para>
<para>A future made in Australia requires investments that provide safe, secure and well-paying jobs with good conditions. This means investing in training to develop a highly skilled workforce and broadening opportunities for workforce participation, particularly for some underrepresented groups such as women, First Nations communities and some remote communities as well. In addition to this, domestic industrial capabilities must be strengthened through more robust local supply chains. COVID exposed this flaw in our economy, so projects need to demonstrate transparency and compliance with tax management, including any contributions received under Future Made in Australia supports. These supports are the government investments to which the community benefit principles apply.</para>
<para>In its initial phase, the bill enables two kinds of support. The first is the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund. The second concerns investments that are referred to the government for assessment under Export Finance Australia's National Interest Account. Under the legislation, the minister can add more supports in the future. The framework itself has two streams, focusing on the net zero transformation and economic security, balancing both of those. The net zero transformation stream concentrates on sectors that are likely to have an ongoing comparative advantage in the global economy. These sectors are anticipated to need public investment in order for the sector to make a cost-efficient contribution to emissions reduction. The economic resilience and security stream highlights the sectors that require a level of domestic capability, such as for national security reasons, via government support—so that we're not exposed, basically.</para>
<para>The sector assessment process is the third key component of this bill, and this assessment process will be transparent, made at the request of the Treasurer and implemented by Treasury. These assessments will be made public so that Australians can gauge whether an area of the economy is aligned with the national interest framework. The assessment process will also inform government as to any barriers to investment.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 outlines specific changes to enable the measures mentioned. Firstly, the government is amending the Export Finance Australia legislation to encourage and facilitate private sector investment. This includes ensuring the availability of support for existing funds and programs that cannot fully support a project. The bill also enables Export Finance Australia to focus on domestic investments that boost the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. Export Finance Australia will carry out these operations while continuing to bolster other national interest programs such as the Critical Minerals Facility, the Southeast Asia Investment Financing Facility, the defence export facility, and the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific—all important projects.</para>
<para>The second schedule of this omnibus bill makes amendments to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011. These amendments will ensure that the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, known as ARENA, can support the Future Made in Australia strategy. ARENA first received statutory funding way back in 2011. I should acknowledge that back then it had bipartisan support. I think that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison conga line of LNP governments did attack ARENA—particularly the Abbott government—but it survived and gave those three governments their only claims to have responded in any way at all to dangerous climate change, although, to be fair, I think that Turnbull and Morrison might have chronically neglected ARENA, rather than attacked it like Tony Abbott did.</para>
<para>As a result of these omnibus changes, ARENA will have a limited special appropriation within the legislation. The agency's parameters will be extended to include a fourth objective, which is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… to contribute to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement.</para></quote>
<para>ARENA will also promote electrification and energy efficiency, given their crucial part in enabling the net zero transition, as well as enable greater integration of renewable energy into the grid. Obviously we all know, especially on this side of the chamber, that more renewable energy equals lower power bills. The equation is simple.</para>
<para>With global greenhouse gas emissions in mind, ARENA will also support the development and manufacture of Australian renewable energy products for our trading partners. This will assist our trading partners with their own decarbonisation targets and have a positive effect on reductions globally. After all, there is only one planet. Our neighbour's problem can be our problem to help solve.</para>
<para>These positive changes for ARENA will provide the agency with the foundation it needs to support the transition to net zero and make Australia a renewable energy superpower. Statutory funding means ARENA delivers its Future Made in Australia components, such as the Solar Sunshot program and the Battery Breakthrough Initiative. A snapshot of the Sunshot program shows how it supports a Future Made in Australia. It aims to support innovative manufacturing facilities right across the solar supply chain, and the Battery Breakthrough Initiative promotes the development of domestic battery manufacturing capabilities. We won't just ship off raw materials and buy back—ship in—manufactured value-added batteries. Instead we'll build them here in the first place. We know that it's happening, particularly in rural Australia. In Queensland, old or soon to be decommissioned coal-fired power stations are being reutilised by these batteries and other solar initiatives because of their connection to the grid.</para>
<para>This bill directs statutory funding of over $6 billion of ARENA's existing funding to a limited special appropriation. It gives private investors the security required to support the extensive projects crucial to the transformation to net zero. It also showcases Australia's unwavering commitment to climate targets. Internationally we were fast becoming a pariah when it came to our response to dangerous climate change.</para>
<para>The final raft of reforms to ARENA concern its governance and ensures that the agency has the ability to succeed with its expanded remit. The board will be strengthened and the agency will be able to employ its own staff. It also changes certain ministerial arrangements, including enabling the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to delegate powers to other ministers and establishing the Minister for Finance as a joint minister for ARENA, reflecting the reality that responding to dangerous climate change must be an economy-wide endeavour. All ministers have a role to play.</para>
<para>As the Treasurer has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have a unique combination of geological, meteorological, geographical and geopolitical comparative advantages and we know it would be an egregious breach of our generational responsibilities as a government if we didn't play this winning hand.</para></quote>
<para>Well said, Treasurer. That's why this year's budget directed $22.7 billion of investment into this strategy. We're already on this pathway to change and prosperity. The foundations are in place. Under Labor we are generating 25 per cent more renewable energy. In only two years we've approved enough renewable energy projects to power three million Australian homes. A Future Made in Australia is one that boosts such projects. It harnesses our natural strengths and resources. It positions us for emerging markets. It focuses on communities, technology, jobs and skills and provides the building blocks for cleaner and cheaper solutions to these energy problems. It means that we won't be slugged with carbon input charges by other nations or other blocs of nations. These carbon tariffs are real, they're emerging more and more and they will come.</para>
<para>We are a trading nation. Remember, we grow enough for 75 million people, but there's only 25 million of us. We're a trading nation, but in reality we're far from markets so we don't want to be exposed to extra costs. This is why a future made in Australia remains Labor's focus. We are taking action to deliver Australia's next generation of prosperity. Get on board or get out of the way. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Another day and we have another bill from Labor full of spin, devoid of detail and delivering no immediate relief for Australian manufacturers. The Future Made in Australia Bill—or MIA as it's aptly named—is yet another example of Labor's policies, which are missing in action when it comes to delivering real support for Australian families, small businesses and farmers, who are struggling under the crushing weight of a government that is driving up the cost of living and has no regard for Australians doing it tough as a result. After 12 interest rate hikes, facing some of the most persistent core inflation in the developed world and dealing with higher taxes, Australian families shouldn't have to bear the cost of Labor's re-election strategy.</para>
<para>Despite all of the rhetoric, this legislation fails to address the most pressing needs of those who keep our economy going. When you get into the detail of the Future Made in Australia Bill it is glaringly obvious that Labor has once again fallen short in the fundamentals required to foster business growth and development. Where is the meaningful action to reduce the burden of red tape that strangles innovation and where is the tax reform that our businesses so desperately need? The bill does nothing to alleviate the skilled worker shortages that are hampering industries and it fails to provide any credible plan for driving down inflation, which continues to erode the purchasing power of everyday Australians.</para>
<para>Let's not forget the critical need for clean, affordable and reliable energy, which is a cornerstone for any thriving economy but is conspicuously absent from this legislation. Labor shows their lack of understanding of the business sector and has missed the mark on every account. Instead of empowering our businesses to grow, innovate and compete on the global stage, this bill is yet another missed opportunity and another failure to grasp the basic economic principles that our nation needs to succeed.</para>
<para>The harsh reality is that the bill does nothing to alleviate the immense pressure that manufacturers are facing due to the ongoing economic mismanagement by this government. For far too many Australian manufacturers the damage has already been done. It's simply two years too late. Under the oversight of this government we've witnessed an alarming surge in insolvencies within the manufacturing sector, with numbers having tripled in a short span. Since Labor took office, approximately 19,000 businesses have entered insolvency, marking the highest number recorded since ASIC began collecting this data. Productivity has plummeted and businesses that have been the backbone of our economy for generations are struggling just to keep their doors open and workers employed.</para>
<para>This bill is not an isolated failure. It's part of a broader pattern of ineffective policies that have consistently missed the mark. Take, for instance, Labor's much touted $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. Despite all the grand promises, this fund is still yet to deliver a single dollar to actually help businesses grow, innovate or develop. This absence of delivery is a stark reminder that under this government bold headlines often failed to translate into real-world action and results. Our manufacturers deserve better. They deserve policies that will genuinely support growth, enhance competitiveness and secure their future. Unfortunately, this government's track record shows a continued failure to deliver on those needs.</para>
<para>It is important to note that it's not just my colleagues and me in the coalition who are sounding the alarm on this desperate and ill-conceived policy. The concerns are being echoed by those on the frontline of our economy, including manufacturers not only in my electorate of Capricornia but also from every corner of Australia. In countless meetings and discussions the message from these industry leaders has been consistent and clear: this policy falls woefully short of delivering the competitive edge that Australian manufacturing so desperately needs. They understand the challenges of the global market and they see that this policy does nothing to equip them with the tools necessary to thrive and compete on the world stage.</para>
<para>The voices of these manufacturers should not be ignored. Their expertise and firsthand experience underline the serious flaws in this approach. Jack Trenaman, a local business owner and manufacturer in my electorate of Capricornia, has expressed a deep concern that echoes throughout the manufacturing sector in Australia. He's witnessing firsthand the devastating effects of rising electricity costs, fuel prices and overwhelming red tape which are driving his business into the ground. According to Jack, manufacturing businesses across the country are watching in dismay as the industry they've built and sustained for years is slowly disappearing under the weight of these crippling expenses. Jack's business, SMW, is now one of only three remaining mining truck trade manufacturers in Australia, a stark indicator of how dire the situation has become. Despite the booming demand in our mining industry, driven by coal exports and critical minerals, Jack finds himself struggling to compete with international markets.</para>
<para>It's astonishing to think that while our mining sector is thriving our local manufacturers are being outpaced by overseas competitors who can produce the same products at a 30 to 40 per cent lower cost. This situation lays bare the glaring disconnect between the policies being implemented and the harsh realities faced by our manufacturers. As Jack put it to me, Labor policies are nothing short of a shackle on the industry's productivity. Instead of enabling growth, these policies are tying the hands of our manufacturers, making it increasingly difficult for them to keep their doors open, let alone thrive. Jack's experience is not an isolated one; it's a reflection of a broader systemic failure that needs urgent attention if we are to preserve a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>Australia has a long and proud tradition of excellence in manufacturing, and the coalition has always been at the forefront of supporting this vital industry. Under our modern manufacturing strategy we didn't just talk about supporting manufacturing; we took decisive action. We were actively expanding and modernising our sovereign manufacturing capabilities, making strategic investments to secure critical supply chains and ensuring that businesses like SMW had access to the skills and world-class research needed to drive further expansion and growth.</para>
<para>Our approach was about empowering Australian manufacturers not only to compete but to lead on the global stage. The results were clear: under our strategy, the industry was thriving, with businesses seeing real, tangible benefits from our policies. This stands in stark contrast to the government's current National Reconstruction Fund, which has thus far proven ineffective in delivering the support our industry desperately needs. While our policies were producing measurable successes, the National Reconstruction Fund is yet to provide the necessary resources and backing to ensure the continued strength and competitiveness of Australian manufacturing.</para>
<para>The difference is clear. Whereas we invested in growth and modernisation, the current government's approach has fallen short. Leading representatives from key business peak bodies have voiced serious concerns regarding the Future Made in Australia Bill, reflecting a growing unease within the industry. The Business Council of Australia, for example, submitted a detailed critique to the Senate inquiry highlighting significant flaws in the bill's restrictive design and rigid eligibility criteria. They warn that these constraints could severely limit the support available for projects. This could have the unintended consequences of pushing valuable opportunities overseas, depriving Australia of critical economic benefits and job creation.</para>
<para>Adding to their concern is the bill's narrow and inflexible community benefit principles, which introduce yet another layer of red tape into the investment process. These principles make it exceedingly difficult for potential applicants to navigate the system, deterring many from even applying. The business council fears that this additional complexity will stifle innovation and limit the bill's overall effectiveness in bolstering Australian manufacturing and industry.</para>
<para>The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has also raised alarms, particularly over earlier extensive announcements of projects that have already been allocated funding under the Future Made in Australia Bill. Labor has publicly championed a $4 billion investment in the Hydrogen Headstart program, over $6 billion in hydrogen production tax incentives and a $1 billion commitment to Solar Sunshot solar panel manufacturing. However, these precommitments alone total an overwhelming $19.4 billion, leaving just $4.5 billion available for new projects over the next decade. This imbalance raises serious questions about the bill's ability to adequately support emerging industries and new innovation.</para>
<para>The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry encapsulated their broader concerns in their submission, cautioning that 'there is a risk that the bill's focus on new industries might undermine existing sectors that are crucial to Australia's economy. It is vital to support industries where Australia has a competitive advantage.' This statement underscores a profound worry that the bill's current focus could inadvertently weaken established sectors that are essential to our nation's economic stability and growth. These warnings from peak bodies reflect a broader disconnect between the bill's intensions and its practical implications. It is crucial that these concerns are heeded if we are to avoid undermining the very industries that have long been the backbone of Australia's economy.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill, while seemingly designed to bolster our manufacturing sector, falls significantly short of addressing the real challenges faced by Australian businesses. This legislation in its current form is a missed opportunity, one that fails to deliver the necessary support for our manufacturers, who are the lifeblood of our economy. The restrictive design, excessive red tape and lack of tangible benefits underscore a disconnect between the government's promises and the harsh realities on the ground. Our manufacturing industry has a proud history and remains crucial to our national prosperity. Yet, under this government's watch, we've seen insolvencies skyrocket, productivity plummet and businesses struggle to keep their doors open. The coalition, through our Modern Manufacturing Strategy, demonstrated what is possible when government policy aligns with the needs of industry. The tangible benefits of our approach stand in stark contrast to the ineffective policies currently being put forward.</para>
<para>Additionally the concerns raised by peak industry bodies should not be dismissed. The warnings from the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlight the real and present dangers of this bill. They have pointed out the flaws in this bill's design, the risk of pushing projects overseas and the potential undermining of existing sectors vital to our economy. These are not just theoretical concerns; they are grounded in the lived experiences of those who are on the front lines of our manufacturing industry every day. It is imperative that we learn from these insights and adjust our course accordingly. The focus must be on creating policies that genuinely support and enhance our manufacturing capabilities. We need policies that return to the fundamentals and set us back on the right path by curbing inflationary spending, reducing bureaucratic red tape, simplifying Labor's complex industrial relations agenda, lowering taxes and implementing a competition policy that truly gives small businesses a fair chance. Most importantly we must ensure the delivery of affordable and reliable energy. We must ensure that the industries where Australia has a competitive advantage are not only preserved but empowered to thrive in an increasingly competitive global market.</para>
<para>Let us not forget that the future of Australia's manufacturing industry depends on the decisions we make today. We owe it to our manufacturers, to our workers and to all Australians to get this right. This bill in its current form is not the solution. It's time for a rethink, a realignment with the needs of our industry and a renewed commitment to policies that will truly drive growth, innovation and prosperity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we face a crucial moment in Australia's economic history. The Albanese Labor government is committed to building a future made in Australia, where local industries and ideas not only survive but thrive. This vision is about more than just economic growth; it's about ensuring that every Australian benefits and about securing our place in the global economy. That's why I am proud to discuss the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Our plan, backed by $22.7 billion in investment, aims to unlock the full potential of our resources and transform Australia into a manufacturing superpower. This bold agenda is designed to drive innovation and industry growth, establishing Australia as a global hub for advanced technologies. Our initiatives include the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, the Hydrogen Headstart program, the Battery Breakthrough Initiative and the Solar Sunshot program. These programs are all about investing in the breakthrough technologies that will revolutionise our industries.</para>
<para>We are also focused on building strong supply chains and encouraging collaboration between industry and academia to drive research and development. This is not just about securing our economic future; it's about shaping a future where Australian innovation and creativity are celebrated globally. In this future, Australia leads by example, meeting the challenges of the 21st century and thriving in adversity. It's a future where every Australian has the chance to succeed, where innovation flourishes and where sustainability is at the core of everything we do. Labor is dedicated to this vision and is working hard to make it a reality.</para>
<para>Today marks a pivotal point in Australia's economic journey. We must address the consequences of past decisions that have weakened our manufacturing sector. Over the past decade, the previous Liberal governments neglected and mismanaged our industries, leading to the decline of key sectors like car manufacturing. This sector was not just a part of our economy; it was crucial to our national identity and prosperity. Instead of supporting local industries, the Liberal government chose to prioritise cheap imports over domestic production. This short-sighted approach hurt our manufacturing capabilities and sacrificed the livelihoods of hardworking Australians, families and entire communities. The result has been a shrinking industry base, fewer job opportunities and a heavy reliance on foreign goods. Now we have the chance to change the direction and focus on supporting local industries and communities. The Albanese Labor government is committed to bringing manufacturing back to Australia and building a future made right here. Our aim is not only to recover from past mistakes but to secure our place in the global economy and build a stronger and more resilient nation.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill is based on three pillars: the National Interest Framework, which helps us focus on sectors where Australia has a clear advantage in the new net-zero economy or where investment is needed for economic security; the sector assessment process, which is crucial for understanding and overcoming barriers to private investment in important sectors; and community benefit principles, which ensure that both public and private investments provide strong economic returns and also benefit our communities. These pillars are the foundation of the Future Made in Australia Bill, guiding us towards a successful, future-ready economy.</para>
<para>Our $22.7 billion investment is not just about infrastructure; it's an effort to drive innovation, support local industries and establish Australia as a leader in the 21st century. The Future Made in Australia Bill represents a bold agenda. It aims to boost industry growth and innovation through targeted investments and strategic initiatives. Our approach builds on Australia's vast natural resources and minerals, which are crucial for our economic prosperity and the global shift towards sustainability. Australia is a world leader in essential minerals like lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, iron ore, copper and gold. These minerals are key for advanced technologies such as batteries and renewable energy systems. Currently, these resources are exported overseas, where other countries process them into high-value products and capture the full economic benefit. The Albanese Labor government recognises the potential for Australia to process these critical minerals here, adding significant value and creating high-quality jobs. By investing in advanced processing technologies, we can produce high-value products like green steel, biodiesel and advanced batteries right here in Australia. This shift will reduce our dependence on foreign processing and allows us to secure a larger share of the global value chain and create good jobs right here.</para>
<para>Our plan includes the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, the Hydrogen Headstart program, the Battery Breakthrough Initiative and the Solar Sunshot program. Each of these initiatives is aimed at making Australia a leader in cutting-edge technologies and industries. The Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund will support emerging technologies and startups, nurturing Australian talent. The Hydrogen Headstart program aims to make Australia a global leader in clean hydrogen production, the fuel of the future, using our renewable resources. The Battery Breakthrough Initiative focuses on improving battery technologies by using our minerals to create crucial components for energy storage and electric vehicles here onshore. The Solar Sunshot program is dedicated to capitalising on our abundance of sun by making renewable energy more accessible and affordable. These programs will create good jobs, high-tech jobs and high-paying jobs.</para>
<para>By investing in advanced manufacturing and digital innovation, the bill will open up opportunities for skilled professionals in engineering, data science and technology development. In addition, we are committed to building a resilient supply chain and promoting collaboration between industry and academia. This approach will drive research and development, ensuring Australia remains at the forefront of technological advancements and can compete globally. For those who question the potential of this bill, consider the success of the US Inflation Reduction Act. This act has created over 170,000 new jobs across 210 projects in electrical vehicles, batteries and clean energy. In the US, manufacturing construction spending has doubled since the end of 2021. It's clear that reviving manufacturing sectors is possible, and I believe Australia has the resources and capabilities to achieve similar success.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill envisions a nation that leads by example. It's about not only addressing the challenges of the 21st century but thriving despite them. It's a future where every Australian has the chance to succeed, where innovation flourishes and where sustainability is at the heart of our economy. As we move forward, we must learn from our past mistakes. The previous government's neglect of manufacturing has left us with underinvestment and missed opportunities. But instead of focusing on past failures, we should concentrate on the future we can build together.</para>
<para>Australia is a land of opportunities, blessed with abundant natural resources and a skilled workforce. Our rich deposits of critical minerals, vast renewable energy potential and innovative spirit give us a unique position to benefit from the global shift towards sustainable industries. We have the chance to turn these advantages into economic strength, driving growth and creating quality jobs for all Australians. The Future Made in Australia Bill represents our commitment to seizing this opportunity. By investing in local industries and supporting new technologies, we are not just addressing immediate needs; we are laying the foundation for a prosperous future. This is about more than just policy; it's about building a legacy of strength, resilience and opportunity for future generations.</para>
<para>The Liberal Party's failure to invest in manufacturing has left a gap that we are determined to fill. Their lack of vision has cost us valuable industrial capacity and economic potential. With the Future Made in Australia Bill, we are setting a new course that prioritises Australian workers, supports local businesses and builds a sustainable future. We are committed to ensuring that Australia not only recovers from past mistakes but also emerges stronger and more competitive than ever. I want to thank the ministers who have worked on this bill, especially Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, for their vision. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Holt was saying that those thinking about voting against this bill should consider the US Inflation Reduction Act. Well, there's one key difference between the US Inflation Reduction Act and the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. That key difference is that the Inflation Reduction Act is technology agnostic. As the member for Holt exits, I'd just like her to note that the Inflation Reduction Act is investing in nuclear energy. In the US it's bipartisan, unlike the Future Made in Australia Bill, which is picking winners and certain energy technologies to invest in. This act would be unable to invest in nuclear energy, unable to invest in gas or carbon capture and storage and unable to invest in other net zero technologies that the US and many other countries around the world have.</para>
<para>Therein lies the coalition's opposition to this act: it's not technology agnostic and, unfortunately, it's not like the Inflation Reduction Act. It's a partisan and ideological attempt to actually railroad industry into certain ideological priorities that the Labor government is pushing. Unfortunately, Australia is at a crossroads in energy and technology, and they are reshaping our economy. Given these trends, the Future Made in Australia Bill seems to be well timed—it's got a very good tagline—but it is falling short of what it might promise. I think all members in the coalition and on this side of the House would support measures that, as this bill quotes, 'capitalise on the economic and industrial opportunities of the global move to net zero' and 'align its national security and economic interests'. If this were what this bill was truly doing, I have no doubt members on this side of the House would be supporting it.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, this bill is more about marketing than it is about delivery. Economist after economist is lining up to criticise it, and I'm glad the member before me was talking about the Inflation Reduction Act, because that is an act that is not ideologically pushing certain technologies. It's actually focused on outcomes, it's focused on increasing manufacturing, it's focused on jobs and it's focused on doing this with whatever the technology may be—nuclear, renewables and wind—but this is not what we have here.</para>
<para>In this bill we have an attempt to expand the EFA and ARENA and to establish a national interest framework. This expanded remit would fund domestic industries nominated by the Minister for Finance, and, finally, ARENA's functions would expand from pure R&D to deployment. This move to deployment and manufacturing would double up responsibilities for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. In a cost-of-living crisis, we cannot be wasting taxpayers' money. As we talked about yesterday in the MPI, when we're spending more and more in the government sector, what we're doing is fuelling inflation. We're fuelling inflation and increasing the cost of living for millions of vulnerable Australians. This is not what we need at this time.</para>
<para>Furthermore, the bill gives the minister for climate change the ability to unilaterally boost ARENA's funding with the stroke of a pen. The minister for climate change can roll out up to $4 billion in an election year. This does not sound like a bona fide and genuine attempt to address Australia's manufacturing capability. This sounds like a partisan attempt to pick technologies that suit an ideological agenda, unlike the IRA—this is nothing like that act. The member for Holt could not be more wrong. They are doing this in an election year with an unfettered $4 billion—we don't know where it's going to go—with no parliamentary oversight and with no proper scrutiny. With just some delegated legislation, $4 billion can walk out the door.</para>
<para>This is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Australia's taxpayers are already on the hook from Labor's inflation. We've said this figure many times: $315 billion in the last two years since the election, with $30,000 per Australian household. I can tell you that the households in Cook do not feel $30,000 better off in the last two years. They feel much, much poorer. They don't even feel better off. Putting $4 billion out the door into a slush fund is just going to fuel inflation and make them even worse off again.</para>
<para>Australian families are already paying this price. There have been 12 interest rate hikes since the election, and we have the most stubborn core inflation in the developed world and higher taxes that come with it.</para>
<para>More broadly, why focus on ARENA to support manufacturing? We really should be focusing on things that are technology agnostic. Judgements made on this National Interest Framework will be made on a very narrow and flawed set of criteria. The government has provided evidence to Senate estimates that shows that these criteria will prevent key investments in sovereign capability in net zero technologies—technologies that will reduce the effects of climate change, that will take carbon out of the air and that will lower the cost of energy.</para>
<para>We can't invest in carbon capture and storage. I'd love the next speaker to explain why we are getting rid of carbon capture and storage. Why can't that be invested in? We can't invest in blue hydrogen. We can't invest in uranium and we can't invest in nuclear. The IRA allows these investments. Why is this government deciding not to do that? The IRA was pointed to as inspiration for this bill, but I wonder why that has been left out. The whole point of this bill, I would hope, would be to actually increase the supply of clean energy and lower its cost, but we're specifically excluding technologies.</para>
<para>The Business Council of Australia also do not like this. They have warned this process risks subsidising businesses that will never have a comparative advantage. Bran Black, the head of the BCA, has said all investments must be in areas in which we have a comparative advantage and where the investment helps those projects get to market faster or there is a clear national interest in making that investment.</para>
<para>It's not just Bran Black who's been criticising this. Danielle Wood, the Productivity Commissioner, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.</para></quote>
<para>She goes on to say that alternative policies, including lowering the corporate tax rate, would 'make us internationally more competitive'. Danielle Wood is not alone, with former productivity commissioner Gary Banks describing the Future Made in Australia Bill as a 'fool's errand' and saying it risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Seeking to obtain benefits to society through subsidies for particular firms or industries, including in the form of tax concessions, has proven a fool's errand, particularly where the competitive fundamentals are lacking.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Banks somewhat comically likened this scheme to Hotel California, saying many businesses will enter the program 'but few will ever leave'.</para>
<para>One of those that may never leave has been pointed out by the Productivity Commission, which has talked about the $1 billion commitment to make more solar panels in Australia. I've spoken to solar panel manufacturers in the US, who struggle. They tell me it will never be competitive to make solar panels at scale in Australia. I think the Albanese government knows this as well. These programs should be subjected to this National Interest Framework, but they're not going to be. That led the Productivity Commission to say, 'Allowing sectors to bypass the NIF process would undermine its role in disciplining spending.' Yet Labor are already breaking their own rules when it suits them to push an ideological agenda and not focus on outcomes.</para>
<para>I would instead encourage the government to refocus its approach by looking to two key factors that underpin all industry and doing it in a technology-agnostic way. Clean energy: how can we get more clean energy at a lower cost? I would applaud an act that did that. And how can we infuse Australian industry with better technology? Rather than limiting our view to a sector-by-sector focus, we could actually increase capability across all industries—all manufacturing, be that mining, defence manufacturing, agrimanufacturing or food—and really focus on reducing the costs of clean energy.</para>
<para>We need affordable, reliable and clean energy. We need flexible workplaces. We need less regulation. We need to have an incentive based tax system rather than throw $4 billion of slush fund money at a problem, which Labor is prone to do. Without appropriately considered and effective programs that provide long-term solutions to these issues, all we will do is fuel inflation and fuel a cost-of-living crisis. We need a bill that truly addresses the major trends facing Australia.</para>
<para>Consumption of electricity is set to double globally by 2050. Seventy per cent of that growth is expected to come from APAC. Australia's per capita energy consumption is about 25 per cent above the OECD average. We need to push all technologies, not just pick a few winners. We need something that will make Australia more competitive. Governments across the globe are now focusing on strengthening national resilience. The COVID pandemic, the war in Ukraine and geopolitical conflicts have taught us this. The disruption from these events has shown us the impacts on our supply chains. We've also seen tech truly disrupting markets and old manufacturing industries, such as manufacturing, defence and mining. We need something that pushes tech and low-cost energy in all of these sectors.</para>
<para>The coalition in government would do three things: we would steer our nation out of our current domestic cost-of-living crisis and energy crisis; we would not simply talk about changes but meet them head-on with robust action; and, most importantly, we would make decisions that would set our country and nation up for success. We would offer the industry meaningful support before 2027. That won't look like handing out cheques and subsidies to our favourite technologies. Instead, it will be based on improving the operating environment in which businesses work. It will aim to reduce the cost of energy for all businesses. It will be aimed at helping all businesses to reduce the cost of clean energy, not picking our favourites and not picking winners.</para>
<para>This bill ignores some of the biggest enablers of manufacturing. We have a plan to address this. First, in terms of inflation, we would rein in inflationary spending and take the pressure off inflation. As a start, we would not spend billions on corporate welfare for green hydrogen or critical minerals. Even those companies getting production credits are winding up as much as they're investing in it. Second, we would focus on red tape and overregulation. We would prioritise winding back Labor's intervention and regulation, which is suffering our economy, particularly manufacturing.</para>
<para>Third, one of the biggest interventions would be in industrial relations. We would provide the Australian business community with much more certainty and ensure respectful and sector-specific bargains with unions and employers occur. When Labor abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, it was telling what their true priorities in this space were. Then, they were shamed into belatedly dealing with the CFMEU while rolling back regulations that added more cost. Fourth, we would reduce the tax burdens on businesses, particularly small and medium businesses. We would reduce the tax burden on smaller and medium businesses by ensuring Australians keep more of what they earn. This is in stark contrast to Labor's party policy of breaking promises on tax and increasing the tax burden on Australians to fund billions of wasteful spending like that contained in this act. We would also ensure an equal tax playing field exists with multinationals paying their fair share of tax, just like small and medium businesses do in my electorate of Cook.</para>
<para>When asked whether Future Made in Australia contained tax reform, Danielle Wood, the Productivity Commission chair, explicitly said this is 'not tax reform'. On alternative policies, Danielle Wood said that she would look at lowering taxes to make us more internationally competitive. Independent economist Steve Hamilton said, 'It's why I tend to favour more neutral investment incentives like lower corporate tax or accelerated depreciation.'</para>
<para>Fifth, on competition policy, we would give consumers and small businesses competition policy that delivers an equal footing. Sixth, on affordable and reliable clean energy, we would ensure manufacturers have reliable and cheap energy that is technology agnostic. Lastly, on technology, we would help industry through initiatives such as the patent box and the additional $2 billion on the R&D tax incentive.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. Unfortunately, those opposite have no credibility when it comes to talking about manufacturing, considering the shameful decline of the industry that we saw under their watch over a wasted decade, including goading the automotive manufacturing industry to leave Australia. In terms of concrete policies, I think we heard more about the Biden administration's approach to manufacturing than we did about anything that the coalition is prepared to offer. I'm pretty disappointed that once again we're standing here in the chamber debating legislation that is actually going to help drive economic growth in this country and those opposite are just saying no with the most farcical arguments.</para>
<para>I know that building sovereign capability and building good, secure jobs for the future really matter to my electorate of Chisholm. I remember, during the campaign, knocking on doors and speaking to thousands and thousands of voters right across my electorate and having really positive conversations around what it would mean to restore sovereign capability in this country and to build the good, secure jobs for the future that people in my community wanted to see. When I was campaigning and speaking to people initially about what sovereign capability restored in Australia would look like, this was of course during one of the worst periods in the pandemic, when we saw the absolute failure of supply chains—the failure of the previous government to have adequately invested in manufacturing that left us unable as a country to do really basic things, like even just manufacture paracetamol, for instance, and other life-saving drugs.</para>
<para>I am in pretty close regular contact with my local manufacturers in my electorate, and I can tell you that there is real excitement in the community with industry about reinvesting in manufacturing in this country, which of course is something that only Labor governments ever meaningfully do. A future made in Australia is something that we should all be really proud about. It's once again disappointing and unfortunately unsurprising that those opposite have managed to politicise rebuilding sovereign capability and good, secure jobs. Imagine that—imagine standing against sovereign capability when we have just seen a failure of supply chains and standing against good, secure, well-paid jobs. It is unbelievable, but at the same time it is believable because that's who we're dealing with here opposite.</para>
<para>Our government is investing in a future made in Australia because we want to unlock private investment in future industries and bring new jobs and opportunities to communities across the country. I'm an optimist. I'm always hopeful for this country. I'm really ambitious for our country and our communities. This is a really ambitious, optimistic policy that's about building a really wonderful future for everyone in this country. This is about maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the global transformation to net zero and securing Australia's place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. It will help Australia build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy. Powered by renewable energy, it will create more secure, well-paid jobs and encourage and facilitate the private sector investment required to make Australia an indispensable part of the global net zero economy. This is a wonderful chance for us to seize the opportunities presented to us, and I urge those opposite to really reconsider their position on this.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia plan recognises that our future growth prospects lie in the intersection of our industrial resources, skills and energy bases and our attractiveness as an investment destination. It combines our comparative advantages in renewable energy with traditional strengths in resources and manufacturing to build new opportunities, including in critical minerals processing, green metals, clean energy technologies and low-carbon liquid fuels. The bill and omnibus bill deliver on key elements of the government's Future Made in Australia plan, which was announced by our government in the 2024-25 budget.</para>
<para>There is rigour imposed on government decision-making here. We're going to help give investors the clarity and certainty they need to invest and unlock growth in our economy. We know that consistency is really important and that clarity is really important. Unfortunately, once again, that's something that was a failure of the previous government, where there were multiple different policies and never enough certainty for investors to really commit to Australia in the way that we would like to see them and are trying to facilitate through this legislation and this vision for our country.</para>
<para>I know from meeting with a number of companies, industry groups and researchers right through my community how excited people are about this. I meet with people in the medical technology manufacturing sector, the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector, the advanced manufacturing sector and people doing work with clean and renewable energies. I meet with the CSIRO. I meet with ANSTO. I've got the Synchrotron in my electorate. I meet with Monash University. I meet with Deakin University. I meet with partnership groups right across my electorate such as the Monash precinct network. I have Moderna building in my electorate at the moment, joining Pfizer, joining Stryker, joining Pyrochar, joining Sorbent, joining Paragon, joining Textron and a whole range of other industry groups and companies doing incredible work. I know that commitment and certainty in industrial policy are things that people have really wanted to see from government and I'm really delighted that finally they will be seeing that.</para>
<para>The global transition to net zero and the changing geostrategic landscape present a significant opportunity for Australia, and people in my community know that. This is about hope for the future: that they are able to see our country transition to net zero while at the same time taking advantage of the opportunities to uplift the economy, to diversify our market and to really ensure that everyone in our community benefits. We know and we've seen—indeed, all of us have seen—that supply chains are under pressure with increasing fragmentation and global competition. New opportunities in clean energy industries are also emerging that will shape the future of the global economy over the next decade and beyond, and our nation, Australia, is ideally placed to benefit from the global transition is underway, due to our comparative advantages, capabilities and trade partnerships. I see that every day in the industrial research ecosystem in my own electorate of Chisholm.</para>
<para>The private sector is responding to these opportunities, but there is also a role for government in creating a positive, enabling environment for investment. This includes where economic incentives are not aligned with broader national interest objectives. This bill provides a framework and imposes rigour on government decision-making on substantial public investment, particularly those used to incentivise private investment at scale. This bill has a number of key components: embedding the government's National Interest Framework, which was announced at the budget; to help identify sectors where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage in the net zero economy or an economic security imperative; to establish a robust sector-assessment process to understand and remove barriers to private investment; and to establish a set of community benefit principles that will make sure Future Made in Australia investments create strong returns for local communities, workers and businesses. It's really important, as we embark on the process of transitioning to a net zero economy, that no communities are left behind, that no individual is left behind and that we are able to realise opportunities presented for everybody.</para>
<para>The new National Interest Framework will help to better align economic incentives with the national interest. Legislating the framework will provide certainty to the investment community which is critical to attracting private funding at scale. We want to partner with private industry here. The legislation codifies the two streams of the framework. The net zero transformation stream covers sectors that could have a comparative advantage in a net zero economy and where public investment is likely to be needed for a sector to make a significant contribution to emissions reduction at an efficient cost. The economic resilience and security stream covers sectors where some level of domestic capability is a necessary or efficient way to deliver economic resilience and security and the private sector will not be able to deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support.</para>
<para>Sector assessments are made at the direction of the Treasurer and conducted independently by Treasury. They will assess whether an area of the economy is aligned with the National Interest Framework and will help inform how government can reduce barriers to investment in priority areas. There is rigour in this system and there is rigour in this framework. These assessments are also required to be made public, which brings extra transparency and rigour to government decision-making.</para>
<para>The government wants to ensure that public investment and the private investment it attracts flows to communities in ways that benefit local workers and businesses. That's why a set of community benefit principles will be applied to Future Made in Australia supports identified in this bill. Specifically, we want to ensure that investments promote safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions, develop more skilled and inclusive workforces—including by investing in training and skills development and broadening opportunities for workforce participation. We want to engage collaboratively so we that can achieve positive outcomes for local communities such as First Nations communities and communities directly affected by the transition to net zero. We want to strengthen domestic industrial capabilities through stronger local supply chains and demonstrate transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs including benefits received under Future Made in Australia supports.</para>
<para>This legislation is ambitious, and our government is unapologetic about our ambition for this country to seize the opportunities presented by the net zero transition the global economy is going through right now. We can leverage our natural capabilities as a nation here while creating excellent, well-paid and secure jobs right across the country in communities that are going to need government support as we move towards a new global economy. I emphasise once again that this is a global movement and a global economic shift. Australia needs to be competitive here so our communities are able to take advantage of the opportunities presented to us and not be left behind. That is what we would have seen under a coalition government and something we had unfortunately experienced already in the guiding of the automotive industry to leave the country and no preparedness to support good manufacturing jobs in our communities.</para>
<para>The contrast is clear that this side stands for hope, ambition, opportunity, uplifting our economy and diversifying our economy. Once again, unfortunately those on the other side say no to everything that we present. I hope that there is an opportunity for them to recognise the public policy and community benefits that are evident in this piece of legislation and reconsider their position on it.</para>
<para>I know that I will always stand with industry, workers and communities in order to realise the net zero economic transition opportunities here so that we can live on a healthy planet with good, secure and well-paid jobs for all of our communities. Thank you so much.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This legislation is called the Future Made in Australia Bill, but what it should be called is the 'Future is Poor in Australia under Labor' Bill. Supposedly, the Future Made in Australia agenda is targeted to address major structural and strategic challenges that the Australian economy faces. The Labor government says support is needed to crowd in necessary private investment to scale up priority industries that will help the Australian economy navigate and prosper through these challenges.</para>
<para>The Australian government's Future Made in Australia plan identifies renewable hydrogen—or green hydrogen—as a priority industry. This will cost taxpayers an estimated $6.7 billion over a decade in production tax incentives alone. In other words, this is just welfare for billionaires. One of the companies and people set to benefit from this welfare of billions is Fortescue, founded by Mr Andrew Forrest, who had promised 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030. Fortescue opened Australia's largest hydrogen electrolyser manufacturing facility in Gladstone in my electorate of Flynn in April this year, promising thousands of green hydrogen jobs. However, on opening it will employ just 26 people.</para>
<para>Back in July, Fortescue were forced to dramatically scale back their ambitions, unveiling a plan to sack up to 700 workers and postpone their ambitious 15-million-tonne target they had set for hydrogen fuel production by the end of the decade. I recently applied for a right to information access request through the Gladstone Ports Corporation. This RTI found the Gladstone Ports Corporation—the government-owned corporation—has plans for a proposed hydrogen industry and Gladstone which will need 110 gigawatts of renewable energy to produce four million tonnes of hydrogen a year. To be clear, that is approximately double the entire electrical generating capacity of the Australian grid, just for this one proposal. This is economic insanity. The proposal will require 10,000 wind turbines and 2,500 square kilometres of solar panels to be built, and 45,000 megalitres of water each year to reach this target. To produce industrial hydrogen, you need three things: cheap, reliable energy; a huge reliable water source; and a competitive market. At the moment, we have none of these.</para>
<para>I previously asked the following questions that have not been answered—and I will ask again: how much money will be directed to Gladstone? Where will these wind turbines go? Over the Great Barrier Reef? Where will all the solar panels go? On prime agricultural land? Is this funding for hydrogen more money and subsidies for billionaires like Twiggy Forrest? Where will the water come from for Gladstone's hydrogen industry? As the Fitzroy-to-Gladstone pipeline will provide 19,000 megalitres of water for industry at Gladstone, even with the unlikely possibility of the hydrogen industry receiving the full allocation of 19,000 megalitres, where is the remaining 26,000 megalitres of water going to come from?</para>
<para>There has been speculation that large-scale desalination plants could fill the void, and, according to the Water Corporation of Western Australia, seawater desalination is four times more energy-intensive than groundwater collection and more than 40 times more energy-intensive than water sources from dams. This maths just does not stand up. Of the plan to use energy to convert seawater into water and then use more energy to convert the water into hydrogen, my good friend and colleague Senator Matthew Canavan recently said: 'Dig coal, extract natural gas and build nuclear—that is a future made in Australia,' and I couldn't agree more.</para>
<para>Here are some facts about these three industries that those opposite might not be aware of. Coal is used to produce electricity, iron and steel, cement, aluminium, paper, and chemicals, and it is also used as a component in thousands of everyday products, including soaps, aspen, solvents, dyes, plastics and carbon fibres. More than 220 tonnes of coal is required to build a wind turbine. Australia exported $127 billion worth of coal in the 2022-23 financial year. The coal industry employed 48,000 people in 2023. The Australian gas industry is a mainstay of the national economy and is an irreplaceable ingredient for our manufacturing base, driving billions in economic activity through its myriad through-chain applications. Gas in Australia generates $121 billion in economic activity, underpinning 5.25 per cent of GDP, up 42 per cent on the previous year. Australia's gas sector and its network support 258,000 full-time local jobs, up 17,000 on the previous year. Gas is vital and irreplaceable feedstock in the making of many things we need for everyday life, including plastics, fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, rubber, propellants, refrigeration, adhesives and cosmetics.</para>
<para>The Productivity Commission says a $1 billion commitment to make more solar panels in Australia under Anthony Albanese's Future Made in Australia program should be retrospectively subject to a tougher Natural Interest Framework test. Allowing sectors to bypass the National Interest Framework process would undermine its role in disciplining the spending, yet Labor is already breaking their own rules when it suits them. Key elements of Labor's Future Made in Australia agenda, including the $22.7 billion PsiQuantum contract, bypassed the National Interest Framework and sector assessments. There are serious questions to answer about the decision to make this investment, with it becoming increasingly clear that Minister Husic decided to invest in this business independent of any department appraisal, analysis or recommendation. Treasury were not consulted prior to the decision to invest in solar manufacturing, and their subsequent analysis has said that this is not a sound investment. The Productivity Commission were not consulted on details of other proposed investments prior to their announcement, and we are already seeing that this policy is not effective. The Solar Sunshot program has been refused backing by the Treasurer's own secretary, with the main proponent of the policy, who stood alongside the Prime Minister as he announced the initiative, cutting back its staff and replacing its CEO.</para>
<para>Labor's production credits are failing to deliver for the struggling nickel industry, with the promise of future subsidies not holding back the tide of international price pressures and rising domestic prices through energy, tax and workplace laws. This nation is already feeling the effects of their attack on the manufacturing industry. We're seeing a tripling of manufacturing insolvencies under the Labor government. Labor's record on essentials for Australian manufacturing is a disgrace. The cost of energy continues to rise thanks to Labor's renewables-only policy and is only going to keep going up under this Labor government.</para>
<para>Labor's renewables-only plan will impose 58 million solar panels, 3½ thousand new industrial wind turbines and up to 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines across the country. Energy experts have warned that the cost of Labor's rollout will be between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion. Labor will also require 34 times the current amount of utility-scale variable renewable energy in the national electricity market to meet its hydrogen export ambitions. A recent analysis shows that there are some 17,000 wind turbines proposed to be built across the Australian landscape. Under this plan we're going to see blackouts and brownouts. We don't want a California type situation in our country where there are scheduled blackouts and brownouts, because businesses simply will not stay here. High-energy-use businesses won't compete; they can't manufacture in an environment like that. You can't run a full-time economy on part-time power.</para>
<para>Like the other 19 of the G20 countries, the biggest economies in the world, Australia needs to take the decision that is right for our country, and that is nuclear energy. There are around 439 operational nuclear plants in the world. Australia hosts 33 per cent of the world's proven uranium deposits and is currently the third-largest producer of uranium after Kazakhstan and Canada. In 1958, Australia opened its first nuclear reactor, Lucas Heights, in the southern suburbs of Sydney. We've seen this government introduce overbearing industrial relations laws, which are making life tougher for Australian businesses by increasing costs, complexity and red tape and will likely lead to job losses. We've seen a Labor-Greens government introduce safeguard mechanisms, which represent one of the world's most disgraceful carbon taxes and will only see prices soar even further for struggling businesses. Every time they are in government, Labor make sneaky deals with the Greens against the interests of families, businesses and our manufacturers. It is as simple as this: no industry and no manufacturing means no jobs and no future for making things in Australia.</para>
<para>The coalition is not the only one raising serious concerns with Labor's plan. Danielle Wood, who is the Chair of the Productivity Commission and the government's key economic adviser appointed by Jim Chalmers, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.</para></quote>
<para>She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap.</para></quote>
<para>When asked whether Future Made in Australia contained tax reform, Ms Wood explicitly said, 'This is not tax reform.' On alternative policies, including lowering the corporate tax, Ms Wood offered, 'It would make us more internationally competitive.'</para>
<para>Danielle Wood is not alone, with former chair of the Productivity Commission Mr Gary Banks describing the FMIA as a 'fool's errand' that risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. Indeed, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Seeking to obtain benefits to society through subsidies for particular firms or industries, including in the form of tax concessions, has proven a fool's errand, particularly where the competitive fundamentals are lacking.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Banks likened the scheme to 'Hotel California', saying many will enter the program but few ever leave. In response to this, the Prime Minister called Mr Banks a flat-earther.</para>
<para>Another eminent economist, Professor Richard Holden, defended Mr Banks, saying the Prime Minister's insult was wrong and uncalled for. Professor Holden said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The PM says all the wrong things. … And his main argument for subsidies is that other countries are doing it. Like a primary school kid telling a teacher: "but he started it!"</para></quote>
<para>Steven Hamilton, an independent economist, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There are many problems with industry policy, and this is a big one. It's why I tend to favour more neutral investment incentives like a lower corporate tax rate or accelerated depreciation.</para></quote>
<para>He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back.</para></quote>
<para>When comparisons with the US IRA were drawn, Hamilton said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With this scale, it can produce at reasonable cost. [That] is a totally different proposition to doing so in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Without a large domestic market, exports are the only way for Australia to achieve scale. But we are so far away from the kinds of markets we could sell into that shipping costs put as at a distinct disadvantage. No amount of government subsidy is going to get around that.</para></quote>
<para>It's not just economists questioning Labor; it's their union backers as well. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, reported by the ABC as 'the dominant left faction union and a source of talent for Labor in parliament', don't want Treasury to have a central role in Future Made in Australia. They believe Treasury has limited expertise. Australians want and deserve something better. The coalition government will do three things: we will steer our nation out of the current domestic crisis; we will not simply talk about the challenges of our time but meet them head-on with action to carve out a more secure future; and, more importantly, we will make decisions that set up our nation for success for generations to come.</para>
<para>The Flynn electorate is a largely blue-collar electorate, consisting of diverse industries such as mining and resources, agriculture, and heavy industry, with many small and medium-sized businesses. However, every single one of these industries is under attack from the Labor government. I will continue to fight for these hardworking men and women who pay Australia's bills and fund Australia's schools, hospitals, roads and so on. That is why I oppose this Future Made in Australia Bill. In other words, the future is poorer for Australia under this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In spite of that contribution by the member for Flynn, we are maintaining our support for this legislation and for Australia's future. I say to the member for Flynn that he should go to the high-purity alumina factory in his electorate, which is employing hundreds of workers who will benefit from production tax credits. He should go and tell the workers there that it's a waste of money and that they should just be shut down.</para>
<para>At the heart of this Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 are objectives that are at the very heart of the government that I'm proud to lead: making more things here in Australia; making our nation a renewable energy superpower; making our economy more resilient and more secure; making it easier for companies to invest in new projects and create new jobs, particularly in regional Australia; making the most of our natural resources and making the most of our people's potential; and making sure that we seize those opportunities and share them with people and communities in every part of our nation.</para>
<para>Today, and every day, our government is working to help Australians who are under financial pressure. There's everything we are doing on cost of living. We are boosting wages at the same time as we are delivering tax cuts, making sure that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn. We are making sure that they benefit from energy bill relief. We're making sure they benefit from cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and fee-free TAFE. What we have been about is delivering economic security for people in the here and now.</para>
<para>But, because we are a Labor government, in the finest of Labor traditions we always have our eye on the medium and long term. How do we secure our future economic development? How do we anticipate the big changes ahead and shape them in the interest of Australians? We're building economic security for the long term by investing in the next generation of jobs and opportunities. We're delivering reform that holds no-one back and driving progress that leaves no-one behind. That's what our vision for A Future Made in Australia is all about.</para>
<para>And this bill doesn't stand alone. It builds on the work we've already done with our National Reconstruction Fund, investing in manufacturing across our economy and our 500,000 fee-free TAFE places building up the skills of our workforce. There are our investments in universities, science and cybercapability. There are the new jobs and expertise in our defence manufacturing program, which will particularly benefit South Australia and Western Australia. And there's our comprehensive plan for cleaner, cheaper energy for all Australians, driving advanced manufacturing and opening up opportunities.</para>
<para>Making our future here in Australia depends on our workers, skills, education, research and infrastructure. Government has a vital role. We also have an important responsibility in all of this. Private investment is absolutely essential too. What we are about is: how do we facilitate maximising private investment in job creation in industries of the future in order to benefit our economy? That's where our new investment framework in this legislation is so important. It's something that those opposite don't seem to understand. Production tax credits pay on success. If you don't succeed, there is no cost in a reduction of revenue. That is why it has the support of everyone in Western Australia, it would appear, except for the Liberal members over there in the federal parliament. Certainly the state of WA Liberal Party support it. I know the Nats do as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pitt</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're not the majority.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know that the member for Hinkler, in his heart of hearts, will support production tax credits as well. That's because he understands more about industry than the people who sit on their front bench who say no. That is probably why he sits up the back—because he has some knowledge of industry.</para>
<para>But it is quite extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition went to Western Australia a short time ago and hinted that maybe there might be a bit of movement there at the same time as the shadow Treasurer was saying, 'No, this is billions for billionaires as far as we are concerned,' having no understanding of the benefits that this could give. This is about government not replacing private investment; it's about government being a catalyst for investment, unlocking the private capital to build new projects, create new jobs and drive growth and prosperity and doing so in a way that better aligns our national security with our economic security, just as the US, the UK, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Canada and so many nations around the world are doing, safeguarding themselves against the next global shock, whether it's conflict, a pandemic, a cyber attack or another international energy crisis.</para>
<para>This bill recognises the global economic reality, the investments other advanced economies are making in their industrial growth and the commitment that 92 per cent of the world economy has made to net zero, including 97 per cent of Australia's trading partners. In order to reach their goal, these countries will need more clean energy, more solar power, more wind power, more batteries and storage, and more of the resources—critical minerals and rare earths—that all this technology depends on. In other words, the world needs what Australia has.</para>
<para>That presents our nation with a choice that will define the future of our economy. We can choose to carry on as we are, to stay in our lane and be satisfied with our lot and watch the world move past us, or we can actually move forward. We, of course, can continue to extract our resources. We'll continue to export them. But, where possible, why wouldn't we want to add the value and create the jobs and make the products before others sell them back to us at a premium price? How is that controversial in this parliament in 2024? We can remain the last link in the global supply chain, with all the risks that carries in a more uncertain world, or we can aim for something better. We can make things here. We can add value here. We can turn the resources that the world needs into the products that the world wants. We can build an economy where manufacturing is every bit as strong as mining and where Australian researchers and innovators can commercialise their ideas here and turn discovery into industry. In doing so, we can bring a new generation of secure, well-paid jobs to our regions and our suburbs alike.</para>
<para>If you look back to the creation of the car-manufacturing industry under John Curtin and Ben Chifley and their vision for national reconstruction after the Second World War, you see there is an economic multiplier effect. But, importantly, Curtin appointed Chifley as the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction at the height of World War II. That's vision. That's making sure that you look forward and plan for it and invest in it, because the truth is that there is an economic multiplier effect with all of this. It's always more than the sum of the parts. It's an ecosystem of jobs, skills, innovation and small businesses. This is where we want a more diversified and more decentralised economy, where workers and communities in every part of the country share in this opportunity. That's the purpose of the community benefit principles in this bill—making sure that new investment in new projects flows into local jobs, apprenticeships and supply chains, strengthening regional centres and, as I said at Garma earlier this month, bringing new economic empowerment to remote Indigenous communities so that new energy projects and new defence and security projects across northern and central Australia bring new careers in construction, renewable energy, the care economy, technology, infrastructure and resources to First Nations people, overcoming entrenched disadvantage, delivering new self determination and creating intergenerational opportunity.</para>
<para>Our vision for a future made in Australia is about every part of Australia: securing Gladstone's future as a global hub for clean energy and green industry; expanding medical manufacturing in Victoria; revitalising the Upper Spencer Gulf in South Australia as a producer of green iron, steel and cement; re-energising the Hunter Valley with new jobs in technology and manufacturing; and enabling workers across WA to extract critical minerals but also process and refine them and turn them into products—because that's what Australia can do that other countries can't. We have that combination of resources, skills, workers, space and sunlight to co-locate those links across the value chain, cutting transport costs, cutting energy costs, cutting emissions both here and abroad, and creating a new comparative advantage that gives Australian manufacturing and Australian workers the capacity not just to compete but to succeed. We are in that position.</para>
<para>Those opposite want to just talk Australia down. I want to build Australia up, to seize the opportunities which are there. This bill is at the heart of our government's vision for a stronger, more prosperous, more resilient and more diversified Australian economy. It reflects our confidence in Australian workers; our respect for Australian scientists and innovators; our belief in the boundless potential of our regions and our resources; our support for the Australian private sector; and our determination to work with business and industry to bring jobs and opportunity to every part of our country, to make the most of this moment and to make more things here. Above all, this bill speaks to our unwavering determination to shape the future, not wait for the future to shape us. That is where the choice for those opposite is crystal clear. You can't build a future with negativity. You can't shape change if you're afraid of it. You can't create good jobs if you're opposed to fair pay and conditions. And you can't pretend to be for Queensland or Western Australia or growth or investment if you're against the jobs and investment this legislation will deliver.</para>
<para>Over the past two years, it's become clear that the biggest threat to Australian jobs and investment is not international uncertainty nor changes in the global economy. The biggest threat and the greatest risk to Australia's future are the Liberal and National parties. They voted against the National Reconstruction Fund. They voted against energy bill relief. They say that fee-free TAFE is a waste of money. They attack the CSIRO. They call Australian manufacturing a graveyard. They bag production tax credits as corporate welfare. And, a decade after the then Liberal Treasurer stood at this dispatch box and dared Holden to pack up and leave, they still brag about driving the car industry out of Australia, and now they want to sacrifice a new generation of manufacturing jobs all in the name of their obsession with nuclear power.</para>
<para>Consider the contrast. This legislation is about unlocking private investment in jobs and industry and energy around our nation. On that side, the Liberals can't find one single investor for even one of their nuclear reactors. They talk about picking winners; they're going to pick the winners to have nuclear reactors. This is about driving the private sector. They're going to charge the whole lot to the taxpayer even while refusing to tell people how much it will cost to build these reactors or how long it will take—at least 20 years! And, if all that is done, it will deliver a measly four per cent of the energy that Australia needs, costing at least three times over the cost of construction and the cost of higher energy bills but, importantly, the opportunity cost as well—the jobs, investment, energy and certainty that Australia would miss out on right now. That is the price our nation would pay for turning away from our unbeatable natural advantages to instead go chasing after something that takes longer, costs more and delivers less.</para>
<para>Let there be no doubt about it: this is a decisive decade for our nation's future. We are in our moment right now, and we must seize it. We have everything that the world wants. There is nowhere you'd rather be than us with the space that we have, the best solar resources in the world, the best wind resources in the world, the best scientists in the world and the best resources under the ground that the world needs—the resources that will drive the global economy in the 21st century. The only thing that Australia does not have is time to waste, so, with optimism, with determination and with purpose, I commend this bill for a future made in Australia to this House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that I rise to speak after the Prime Minister, who's leaving the chamber, as are those behind him.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You'll stay? Thank you. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said. He spoke about hope and optimism for this nation's future. The title of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is telling. It's a title that reasonable people might agree on, but it's the content that matters. Too often in this parliament we've seen a cute title with something that has broad appeal that we all want, but then when you peel back the actual document and the actual policy, it has nothing to do with the title that is there.</para>
<para>Australia is a great nation. It is a prosperous nation. It has a history that it can be proud of, and it has a future that we look forward to—in fact, a future that drives other people from around the world to this nation because we are optimistic about our future. The Labor Party has a great tradition. It has been around for many decades. The Liberal Party, another party of government, has a great tradition. And one of the things that divides us is a philosophical view on the role of government.</para>
<para>I want to give a practical example of that. In my electorate, there is a small Italian family-owned business called Fratelli Engineering. It actually makes things in Australia now. It makes things in Australia right now. And that manufacturing facility is on its knees. One of the reasons it's on its knees is because it is trying to compete with the inflated costs and prices from big government projects in Victoria. It can't compete with that. When we talk about the role of government and the intervention of government having an actual practical effect, that's happening right now. For example, the North East Link, which was originally budgeted at $10 billion and has now blown out to $26 billion, has inflated costs. When you look at big construction projects, there is a 30 per cent premium of doing business in Victoria. There isn't a 30 per cent premium on doing business with Fratelli Engineering, a private family-owned company; there's a 30 per cent premium on doing business with the state. As soon as the state is the one that is signing the cheques and deciding what is to occur, all contractors know it is a free for all. All know.</para>
<para>At the heart of this bill is arrogance from the government—they know better; they know best. The Prime Minister finished on a claim to optimism. There's nothing optimistic about your view of the capacity of companies like Fratelli Engineering to build things here, when you think that you know better. So that philosophical difference on the role of government is not just an academic exercise for political science classes at universities. It matters to this nation and to the future of this nation. The heart of this bill is that it's driven by a different view of government. It's about who decides. Of course we want more things made in Australia. Of course we need more resilient supply chains. War and pandemic have proven that. The question is: who is better placed to decide that?</para>
<para>There are members on the other benches that know this to be true. I'm on the House Standing Committee on Economics, and here is that committee's <inline font-style="italic">B</inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline><inline font-style="italic">tter </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">ompetition</inline><inline font-style="italic">, b</inline><inline font-style="italic">etter </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">rices </inline>report. The chair of that committee is the very competent member for Fraser, who has an actual PhD in economics from Yale, no less. The foreword to that document says this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Competition and economic dynamism underpin everything we do in our daily life—</para></quote>
<para>that's the first sentence; 'everything we do in our daily life,' so this bill actually matters—</para>
<quote><para class="block">whether it is shopping at the local supermarket; using our credit card to make a payment; using an app on our mobile phones to buy an airline ticket or obtain the latest news; and much more.</para></quote>
<para>He goes on on the second page of the foreword to say this about government spending and government interference:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Government now plays a major role in the economy, providing health care, education, social welfare, infrastructure, defence and more. Improving the effectiveness of government services is critical to long-run productivity growth. … Market design and market stewardship are key.</para></quote>
<para>Finally, the member for Fraser says, 'Australia is at a crossroads,' and refers to low productivity growth. No government could cover themselves in glory on Australia's productivity growth, but we know that it is on life support under this government.</para>
<para>Why does productivity growth matter? Well, Deputy Speaker, I would like to take you to another document, the <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline>. The 2023 <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational report</inline> has some alarming calls to action for both sides of this chamber. On page 144, it has the projection of total spending for this nation. Chart 7.2 shows real Australian government spending per person, in 2021-22 dollars, so we're adjusting this for inflation. On current spending, after a peak in the pandemic, we are at about $24,000 per person in Australia of Commonwealth government spending. That is projected out to 2062-63 to be $40,000 per person. That's in today's dollars. If there are no improvements in productivity, the average wage is about $95,000 and the median wage is about $65,000. And there we are, spending $40,000 per person at a Commonwealth level.</para>
<para>The key lesson in the <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline> is that, if we are to be a prosperous nation, we have to bring government spending under control. As the member for Fraser noted, competition and dynamism are everything. They link to national defence, to job security and to a sense of ourselves and whether we can afford to pay for the schools that we have, the infrastructure that we speak about and all of the things that the Prime Minister spoke about with great bluster and enthusiasm. The clear lesson from the <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline> is that government is not the answer. Government should be there to help private sector companies like Fratelli Engineering. So who is the person who knows better than the private sector? Who is the person who knows more than Sam Leo, the owner and founder of Fratelli Engineering? Well, it's the Treasurer.</para>
<para>Unlike the member for Fraser, whose praises I sung about his qualifications and expertise in economics, the Treasurer's expertise isn't in economics. His thesis wasn't on economics; it was on politics. I won't bore the House with the contents of his thesis, but here are the chapter titles. 'Brawler statesman' is chapter 1, with a subchapter on 'Revisiting prime ministerial power'. Chapter 2 is 'Prime ministerial leadership'. 'Leading Labor' is chapter 3. Chapter 4 is 'Controlling cabinet'. On page 119 there's a subchapter called 'Picking winners'. That's interesting. When you go to that subchapter, it's not a warning against the government picking winners; it's an example of how the Prime Minister can deploy, exercise and wield power. Chapter 6 is 'Throwing grenades', and there's a subchapter there called 'Us and them'. That's what I heard in the Prime Minister's speech. It wasn't a speech about hope and optimism for our nation's future. It wasn't a speech about building more Fratelli Engineerings. It was a speech about us and them, and 'us' is not the Australian people; 'us' is the Labor Party and its affiliated unions. That is the measure of success: us and them. There's another chapter on 'Pressing the flesh' and other lessons in how to obtain, deploy and hold on to power. We hear a lot of talk about principles, but what we see in practice more often from this government and this Prime Minister is an exercise in protecting power.</para>
<para>The bill that's before us has had significant and important criticism placed upon it, including from no less than the government appointed head of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.</para></quote>
<para>I just took you to the projected government spending. On that projection, there won't be any 'more'. But what we do know is that, when the North East Link is finished and the 30 per cent premiums on salaries and conditions are over—I wish those on those projects the very best; that's great for them and their families. But when that's all said and done and there's no capacity to move on to the next project and they turn to companies like Fratelli Engineering to get a job, they won't exist anymore, because they will have left. That's borne out now. That's not a projection into the future when this project is finished or the SRL is finished. That's happening now.</para>
<para>We are seeing in Victoria a flight of small and medium businesses out of the state. Every other state in the last financial year saw an increase in the aggregate number of small businesses. Queensland saw an increase of 11,000 in the last financial year. Victoria saw a decrease of 7,400. Many of those shut down never to open again. Many of those took off and went to an area that had perhaps slightly better conditions. But it is an important lesson to this Labor government to look at another Labor government to see how your well-intentioned projects and government interference drive private capital away. It's a warning, and it's not being heeded. There are many Victorian Labor member sitting on those benches over there, and they see it—they see companies like Fratelli Engineering closing their doors and moving off.</para>
<para>It has been pointed out by respected economists, including the Productivity Commissioner, who said what you should be doing is tax reform. Tax reform is how we can get off the private sector's back and actually encourage the proper investments we need to make things in Australia. Other economists like Professor Richard Holden noted that there are significant concerns in this about encouraging rent seeking. In the media and in this House we'll often hear the government members say, 'What are you going to do about it?' Well, the first thing we will do is bring humility to this debate. We will bring humility to say that we don't know better. I'm not an engineer. I haven't built things in Australia, but I know many people who have. The first thing we'll do is listen to them. When you listen to them they will tell you that they just need some breathing space to compete properly—not with government but with the rest of the world. When Australians do that, there is no limit to what they can achieve. We've seen that in many other enterprises.</para>
<para>The coalition is committed to getting back to economic basics, and at the heart of getting back to economic basics is an acknowledgement of and self-reflection on humility. We might have big egos in this place, but building things in Australia is not what we are good at. But there are many people in this country who are, and they deserve us to have their backs and not be on their backs.</para>
<para>We will also rein in inflation. When I spoke about that increase in government spending, the Reserve Bank had been very clear that that is a key contributor to inflation. It is important that we rein government spending in. We will wind back the regulatory layers of red tape that have been added by this government. I want to give an example of where red tape has a real-life consequence, and it's in the area of national security. At the moment if a young person applies to join the Defence Force, some of them aren't hearing back for a year or 18 months later. That has directly contributed to one in 12 full-time Defence Force personnel being absent. We're short 5,000 members of the full-time Defence Force. Red tape isn't an academic line that we throw out that has no meaning or purpose; it has consequences, in national security as well as the economy.</para>
<para>We will also introduce lower, fairer and simpler taxes for all Australians. They won't be about the government picking winners and saying, 'We know best.' It will be principled across the board and it will allow those that will succeed to do their best and those that won't to have those resources diverted elsewhere. That's the very essence of a free-market economy—it is what has served this nation well and it is what will provide the future prosperity so that we're not putting the burden of $40,000 per person on government spending into the future.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The view from Newcastle could not be more contrasting. I rise to speak in support of the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia Bill, and this is a very important and, indeed, most significant step in implementing the government's agenda to help build a stronger economy as well as a more diverse and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy.</para>
<para>Members opposite might wonder why the people of Newcastle, who have a heavily carbon-intensive economy, might be so supportive of this. We'll come to that, but we're not a people who put our heads in the sand and pretend that change isn't underway. This bill, we know and we recognise, is about creating more secure and well-paid jobs, and encouraging and facilitating private investment when required. It is going to be required to make Australia an indispensable part of a global net zero economy. Put simply, we want Australians in secure jobs and we want Australians building things here.</para>
<para>I listened carefully to the speech before me. I must say that when I was growing up, manufacturing was probably the biggest employer in my community. I've observed neglect of that sector now over a period of time, to the point where it is dropping down to the fourth or fifth of employers in my community. That's a sign of things changing in Newcastle, and it is absolutely indicative of the profound neglect of that sector over a long period of time and not understanding the real needs of the manufacturing sector. When I talk to manufacturers in my electorate about the intent of this bill and how it can support them, they are very excited. I want to assure members opposite the manufacturing sector in Australia is very keen to see the passage of this bill through this parliament.</para>
<para>It's no secret that the world is changing. Australia needs to move with t, because we don't have an option to stay stuck in the past—well, we do have an option but it takes us to a very bad place. Members opposite seem to think that it is going to be okay if we somehow ignore the entire transition of the global economy to net zero. This is our opportunity to respond. This is part of the big agenda of this government to undertake what is our greatest challenge. We've heard the Prime Minister say that this is the biggest transformation in the global economy since the industrial revolution. This is our generation's industrial revolution, and Australia needs to get on board. We need to adjust to the changing global economic and strategic landscape. This bill aims to do just that by capturing our unique combination of geological, meteorological, geographical and geopolitical comparative advantages. The legislation will encourage private sector investment to build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy that creates secure, well-paid jobs around the country.</para>
<para>I'll speak to some of the detail later, and I also want to focus on what it means to Newcastle. But what people need to understand about this bill is that it's built on three pillars. The first pillar is the National Interest Framework, which helps us to identify the sectors where we have sustained competitive advantage. We heard the Treasurer speak about that earlier on and what those sustained competitive advantages are in a new net zero economy. The National Interest Framework is also about our economic resilience and security imperatives to invest.</para>
<para>The second pillar is a robust sector assessment process that gives us a better understanding of how we might break down some of those barriers or obstacles that are currently in the way of private investment in key areas of our economy.</para>
<para>The third pillar this legislation rests on, which is a very great interest to peoples and communities across Australia, is a set of community benefit principles. Those principles will ensure that public investment—and the private investment that the public investment is going to generate for us—leads to strong returns but also leads to strengthening our communities, because those returns and benefits have to come back to our greatest assets, which are our communities and our people. So these three pillars will work together to help us build a more diverse and more resilient economy, as I said, that is powered on renewable energies. That's the intent of this legislation.</para>
<para>This is great news for our region, as well as the people that I represent in Newcastle, who are in the most fantastic position to take full advantage, really, of the opportunities presented by the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia plan, because a future made in Australia means a future made in Newcastle. We understand that and we understand that well. We have a deepwater port and we've got vast lands surrounding that port, which are really important for renewable energy. We've got a highly skilled workforce with experience in the generation and storage of energy. We've got a world-leading university, high-quality TAFE and a thriving and highly collaborative business community. We're an attractive place for investment, for clean energy and for the clean, high-value manufacturing industries of the future.</para>
<para>We really want to take full advantage of all the talents of our people of our region and of all those amazing benefits—our incredible natural resources—to not only make things here in Australia but also, certainly, make things again in Newcastle and our region. We're not interested in just simply shipping things overseas and then importing them back as more expensive finished products. So it is absolutely in our national interest to be passing this bill here today.</para>
<para>I want to talk about a few great examples in Newcastle and the Hunter region where we can see the real benefit of private investment. It is most certainly in our national interest to diversify the manufacturing of solar panels and batteries here in Australia and improve those supply chains. We're investing in these areas under the economic resilience and security stream of the future made in Australia act.</para>
<para>In the Hunter region, the site of the former coal-fired power station Liddell Power Station will be transformed into a solar manufacturing hub as part of our federal government's $1 billion Solar Sunshot program, which will help Australia capture more of the global solar manufacturing supply chain through support, including production, subsidies and grants. Capturing more of that supply chain is important for many reasons. One in three Australian households have got solar panels, which is the highest uptake in the world—and that is great—but only one per cent of those panels sitting on roofs today are made in Australia. We want to fix that. Nationally, the Solar Sunshot program is going to create hundreds and hundreds of secure, high-paid, high-quality, high-skilled jobs in regional Australia.</para>
<para>That's just one example of how the Albanese Labor government is not just talking the talk here but actually making sure that we are not only putting investment in ourselves but also signalling to the private sector that we're serious about this business. This is a government that went to an election with an energy policy. We've stuck with that policy. We're not seeking to move to 22 different versions of some policy along the way, and that gives investors confidence. We acknowledge the role we need to play in the transition of our global economy to net zero, and we want our people and our communities to take full advantage of that.</para>
<para>I'm also excited that Newcastle is destined to be part of large-scale renewable hydrogen production in Australia as well. Last year the Albanese Labor government unveiled the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program to support new large-scale renewable hydrogen projects in Australia. Newcastle is very fortunate to have two projects that were shortlisted nationally. There is a group of six that were shortlisted; two of those come from Newcastle. There is $70 million being invested to develop a hydrogen hub in Newcastle to create good new local jobs, standing up a new industry, boosting our renewable hydrogen industry here in Australia. Origin Energy, in collaboration with Orica, is progressing development in the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub, which will produce renewable hydrogen and create around 100 jobs. The funding put on the table by the Albanese Labor government is building the infrastructure needed to produce up to 5,500 tonnes of renewable hydrogen each year. That will be used by Orica in their ammonium and ammonium nitrate facility to help make their products emissions free. These are hard, tough-to-abate industries, and they need something like renewable hydrogen to enable them to make that transition. There is also refuelling hydrogen buses and trucks; we know that the heavy transport sector is also one of those hard-to-abate sectors. Additionally we've KEPCO pushing ahead with its plans to commence hydrogen and ammonium production in the Port of Newcastle's clean energy precinct thanks to a further $100 million investment from the Albanese Labor government. Large-scale production of renewable energy is critical to our nation becoming a global hydrogen leader, and these products reflect the many hydrogen opportunities in Australia.</para>
<para>There is much more to be said. I've heard a lot of disparaging remarks from those opposite about the benefits of offshore wind, but I want to put on the record the strong support of Novocastrians for this new industry. We're in the process of establishing an offshore wind industry in Newcastle. The Albanese Labor government is paving the way for new forms of energy and job security in our region as one of the many regions that are bearing the brunt of this transition. This government is dead-set focused on helping those regions that have been part of a carbon-intensive economy to date to make these important transitions. And that's why I say, when we talk about a future made in Australia, this legislation is squarely focused on regions like mine to ensure there is a future made in Newcastle, in the Hunter and in those regions that are powered this nation for generations. We intend to be powering our cities, our heavy industries, our people and our communities for generations to come, but we will be doing it with new forms of power.</para>
<para>That's why I am very confident about Newcastle's future. When I think about our capacity to generate renewable hydrogen, to stand up a remarkable new offshore wind industry, all of the jobs that are going to come from that—it's phenomenal—the role of solar not just in our region but across the nation and the low-carbon manufacturing that's coming out of industries, I know there's a bright future for our people. This legislation makes sure of that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've got a huge opportunity in this country right now. Australia has a lot of the critical minerals that the rest of the world is going to need, but, critically, we've got the critical minerals that we can turn into products that the rest of the world is going to need as we move towards a zero-pollution society. We've also got a massive opportunity to learn the lessons of the mining boom—the squandered opportunities there that saw Australia not capture and save for the benefit of the Australian population the massive wealth that it created in the way that other countries did with their sovereign wealth funds and their proper taxation arrangements. But we have the opportunity here, on the cusp of a new mining boom, of actually ensuring that it helps set our country up for the future financially, in the way that other countries have done.</para>
<para>To make all of this happen, we in the Greens think government support is absolutely critical. As to this idea that somehow a government cannot play a role in shaping the future industry of this country to ensure that it's the kind of industry that creates secure jobs, gives a lasting return to people and helps tackle the climate crisis, all of those things are going to require government assistance. When it's well spent, that is a good place for government money to go. That's the principal approach that we take to measures that apparently, on the face of it, are about securing a better future for Australia.</para>
<para>What we don't support, and are concerned about, is legislation that is about creating an election slush fund for more coal and gas. There's a real question mark over this legislation, because what we're seeing, at the same time as the government says it wants a future made in Australia, is that it wants a future for coal and gas past 2050. This government has approved 23 new coal and gas projects. Its Future Gas Strategy says it wants gas out past 2050, and the environment minister has been approving projects that run to 2080. When we're meant to be at net zero, Labor is approving coal and gas projects to run out to 2080. We are in a climate crisis now. The scientists are crystal clear when they tell us—and they are ringing the alarm bells as loudly as they can—that, to have any chance of having a safe climate, we can't open a single new coal or gas project. And yet Labor have approved 23 already, and they're asking the public to pay for it; in fact, they're making the public pay for it.</para>
<para>Look at the Middle Arm development up in the Northern Territory, where Labor is building a massive new hub that's based on extracting gas from the Beetaloo. They have public money, again, subsidising a climate-destroying project that First Nations owners don't want and that scientists have said to us cannot go ahead if we're to have any chance of meeting the climate crisis. So, for Labor, A Future Made in Australia is a future for more coal and gas. There's nothing in this legislation that rules out public money going to more coal and gas or to the infrastructure that supports it—nothing. Given that we know Labor now believes that somehow you can cut pollution by increasing it, by opening and approving more coal and gas projects, there's a very real question mark over this legislation as to whether it could be turned into another election slush fund for more coal and gas.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, the second bill that forms part of this package, contains some more support for ARENA, and we support that. The Greens were instrumental in establishing ARENA back in 2010. Because of the design of it, it has survived, it has thrived and it has helped grow renewable energy, so more support for ARENA is something that we also support. But what is also clear in this legislation is that the government wants to expand the old Efic—now Export Finance Australia—to expand its remit and turn it inwards, and to significantly expand the amount of funding going into Export Finance Australia. Why does it want to do that? Well, unlike other agencies, the agency formerly called Efic is overseen by cabinet. It's not an independent statutory authority that's got its own mandate; it's something where cabinet, or ministers, can have a say.</para>
<para>We fear that we're seeing a big pile of money going into a government election slush fund for more coal and gas. We're seeing gas giants like Chevron and Impex salivating over the government's future gas strategy and saying what a good idea it is for the public to dip its hand into its own pocket and use public money to expand new polluting fossil fuel infrastructure. We have no guardrail in this legislation to stop the government from doing exactly that, giving more public money to big corporations to expand coal and gas. And it's all dressed up under the label of 'net zero', which we now know Labor doesn't believe in because Labor says gas beyond 2050 and approved coal and gas mines to run as late as 2080—2080!</para>
<para>There is nothing in this package of bills to ensure that the public gets a fair return from all of this investment. In this country, we have government owned corporations in our markets. For example, Sweden owns steel companies. Japan, China and South Korea own Australia's gas export terminals. Canada owns the Bank of Canada, Finland owns its gambling monopoly and Singapore owns Optus. Australia already has publicly owned corporations in its markets. It's just that none are Australian government owned, and the profits of Australian resources go overseas. We have an opportunity to fix that, to stop it before it starts, by ensuring that, if public money is going to these big new investments, there's some public return and some public ownership. Other countries do that, and they do it in Australia. They ensure they benefit from it, so why can't we do it ourselves?</para>
<para>We also have an opportunity now, as we are drafting legislation and looking ahead to this massive potential mining boom 2.0 that could set Australia up for the future, to avoid some of the mistakes of the past that the government has made with the gas industry. To be very clear, the Greens have a very different approach to gas than Labor and Liberal. We want to stop opening new gas projects. Gas is not part of the solution; it's part of the problem. Gas is as dirty as coal. And the system has plenty of gas to help us make the transition. The problem is that Labor handed everything over to the big gas corporations, including overseas gas corporations. As a result, Australia is awash with gas, yet they claim there's a gas shortage for Australian manufacturing and households. How has Labor allowed a system to arise where we have Australian owned resources but end up exporting four times as much as is used domestically and then claim there's a shortage? The reason is that Labor just did whatever the big corporations wanted. As a result, everyone else was left to suffer.</para>
<para>We have the capacity to stop repeating the same mistake. We need to ensure that, of these critical minerals, enough are reserved for Australian needs, and on top of that, we also invest in ensuring we're processing them here. But there's nothing in this bill that stops a repeat of the debacle of the gas industry. Under Labor's plan, in 10 to 20 years, we could find ourselves worried about a shortage of these critical minerals in the same way Labor says there's a supposed shortage of gas—even though Australia is awash with the stuff. If you hand it all over to big corporations and let them send the resources offshore together with all the profits and put no restrictions around it, then you're setting yourself up for exactly the same situation in 10 or 20 years. It will be robbing the Australian people.</para>
<para>We've got four concerns about this package that Labor is putting forward. As I say, these aren't concerns based on what the coalition was saying—that the government shouldn't be getting involved in setting up industries of the future. Of course, it should. We took a very clear position to the election of expanding significant public investment in exactly this kind of area of critical minerals and manufacturing and, because in many places the best job for a coalminer is another mining job, ensuring that there is a transition made so that workers get well-paid, secure jobs in industries that are going to last. But that's not what this package is.</para>
<para>Firstly, the government has to stop opening new coal and gas projects, because otherwise their 'future made in Australia' will just become a future for more coal and gas. They have to stop funding more coal and gas projects and the associated infrastructure. There are better things for public money to go on than helping big gas corporations to wreck the climate, but that's what the government wants to spend money on. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop in this bill.</para>
<para>Secondly, we also need to ensure that this country gets a fair share of its mineral wealth. We can't miss this mining boom 2.0. A big way we can do that is by looking at public ownership when we have public investment and a public return in the way other countries do. This is our chance to do that. But that's missing from this bill.</para>
<para>Thirdly, we want to avoid a repeat of the situation we find ourselves in now where Australia is awash with resources and yet apparently there aren't enough to use domestically. We have to avoid that. The way to avoid that is to avoid letting the big corporations write the rules. But that's what this bill does. It still allows the big corporations to write the rules.</para>
<para>Fourthly, there is something that's absent from this bill. That's an answer about what happens with First Nations owners under whose land many of these minerals sit. We've seen First Nations people claim, rightly, that they have a claim to this and a right to be involved in what happens. It's not just about, as the Prime Minister's been saying, that First Nations people can go and work for Rio Tinto. It's about what rights the First Nations people, whose sovereignty has never been ceded, have over this country. We know at the moment that in many places there is litigation going on about this very question about the rights First Nations people have on what is happening on their land and on the land under them. That needs to be addressed as well. If we are talking about a future for Australia, then, critically, we need to resolve that question as well.</para>
<para>These bills are working their way through a Senate inquiry at the moment. That will go for a few months. We will reserve our position on these bills until we see the outcome of that inquiry and we see what the government's response is to these very real issues that we have raised.</para>
<para>It's not enough to just set up big buckets of money to use during an election with little to no oversight. This is about whether we can set Australia up for the future, whether we can get a fair share of the minerals and resources and whether we say that the public is entitled to a return on the minerals and resources that we all own.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This legislation, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, represents a defining moment for our nation. It's driven by the Albanese Labor government's commitment towards revitalising Australia's manufacturing sector and, in turn, creating secure, well-paying jobs and building a resilient, sustainable future for all Australians. The Prime Minister, in the lead-up to this year's budget, visited my home state of South Australia and spoke of the vision behind A Future Made in Australia: investing in our people, our infrastructure and our future. This bill is the embodiment of that vision, ensuring that our future is made right here in Australia.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill is presented here as more than purely legislation. It is a core component of our government's blueprint for securing our place in a clean energy future. We can be at the forefront, or we can be bystanders. The Albanese Labor government would rather see us leading the way, using the advantages we possess as a nation to, in true Aussie fashion, punch well above our weight on the world stage. It is about investing in our local industries, boosting productivity and ensuring that secure jobs are accessible to all Australians. We believe that every Australian deserves the opportunity to work in a job that provides stability, fair wages and the chance to build a better future.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill forms part of that commitment, as it focuses specifically on revitalising the manufacturing sector, a sector that has historically provided some of the most secure and well-paying jobs within our economy. For decades Australia's manufacturing sector has faced significant challenges: global competition, economic shifts—and of course those opposite. In the present, Australia needs a government with the determination necessary to bring manufacturing out of dormancy, decline and, in some parts of the country, the realm of myth and legend. And it does, in the form of the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Those opposite only know how to divide and disrupt. Our government has worked from day one to bring stakeholders of diverse and often competing interests together, putting the national interest above self-interest, because this is a government that's determined to ensure that Australia builds its future upon its own soil, with its own hands and with its own raw materials. It is a government unafraid to invest in critical industries and Australian workers, who will reap the benefit of having government and industry directing them toward jobs that are in demand today and will be in demand tomorrow.</para>
<para>The legislation before the House today is to a certain extent a response to the vulnerabilities exposed by global events, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic, when companies and governments scrambled to try and upscale manufacturing capability and to convert the structure and equipment of factories to be able to mass produce medical masks, which were in short supply. This is not unheard of. Australia and indeed many countries during wartime converted car manufacturing plants and similar sites to produce vehicles and weapons for their militaries. Both examples serve as a reminder that it is a matter of national importance to have well-maintained industrial manufacturing capabilities within your own borders.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill addresses these risks by enhancing our domestic manufacturing capacity, ensuring that Australia can produce what it needs when it needs it. This is a cornerstone of the Albanese Labor government's broader economic strategy, one that revitalises local industry, supports innovation and builds a more self-reliant and adaptive economy. These investments, channelled through the National Reconstruction Fund, target key industries, such as renewable energy, critical minerals, defence and advanced manufacturing. The bill itself particularly provides for substantial investments in renewable energy projects by funding the development of solar, wind and hydrogen energy projects, positioning Australia as a global leader in clean energy technology.</para>
<para>As highlighted by the Climate Council, Australia has the potential to become a renewable energy superpower, driving economic growth while protecting our environment. Moreover, the bill sets out clear criteria for assessing sectors and investments through a National Interest Framework. The NIF is crucial in identifying and prioritising sectors for investment under the Future Made in Australia plan, aligning them with national priorities such as decarbonisation and economic resilience. This framework ensures that investments not only support key industries but also deliver broad-based benefits to the Australian community. It is designed to safeguard our economic sovereignty and reduce dependency on foreign supply chains. The framework includes rigorous assessment processes to ensure that every investment is strategically sound and beneficial to the nation's long-term interests.</para>
<para>Furthermore, the Future Made in Australia Bill prioritises local procurement. This is not a new idea that the Albanese Labor government has started to embrace. This has been a constant and consistent approach we have taken since forming government. This policy supports local businesses and utilises local raw materials and critical minerals. It stimulates economic activity and ensures that the benefits of public spending are felt across the country. Even more importantly, it is hard to encourage the Australian people to make a priority of buying Australian made goods unless we practice what we preach. The bill also addresses the need for technological advancement in our manufacturing sector. By investing in advanced manufacturing technologies, we are ensuring that Australian businesses remain competitive in a global market. This includes financial and regulatory support for research and development, technology adaptation and innovation. Advanced manufacturing capabilities will enable us to produce high-quality goods efficiently and sustainably, positioning Australia as a leader in a portion of the manufacturing sector.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill, along with the framework and policies underpinning it, have garnered widespread support from a number of key stakeholders, including many leading figures within our business community, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to the Business Council of Australia, an organisation representing some of the nation's largest companies, who are strong supporters for this bill, stating, 'The Future Made in Australia bill is a critical step towards rebuilding our industrial base and ensuring Australia's long-term economic security.' The Australian Industry Group, another key player in the business landscape, has also expressed their robust support for the bill, praising the strategic investments in advanced manufacturing and technology. They noted, 'This legislation provides a clear framework for enhancing Australia's manufacturing capabilities,' praising the strategic investments in advanced manufacturing and technology.</para>
<para>Future Made in Australia provides us all with a <inline font-style="italic">Groundhog Day</inline>-like experience. Much like the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation and the Nature Repair Market framework, to name a couple of examples, it would appear those opposite would rather fiddle with their isotopes in the corner than work together with a government that had joined with numerous business groups, industry groups, unions, and higher education and vocational training providers. The support of these groups reinforces the bill's focus on boosting Australia's industrial capacity and securing a strong position in a global economy that is pivoting toward a clean energy future.</para>
<para>It is important to note that environmental and economic sustainability are not mutually exclusive goals. The support from the Clean Energy Council underscores the bill's forward-looking approach in this regard. The council remarked, 'The Future Made in Australia bill is a landmark policy that will place Australia at the forefront of the global renewable energy market, and by investing in clean energy projects we are setting the stage for sustainable economic growth and energy security.'</para>
<para>Additionally, the role of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, has been expanded under this bill, supporting industries through the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund. Export Finance Australia has also been granted new functions related to supporting projects in line with national economy and net zero priorities. These expansions demonstrate our government's commitment to leveraging existing institutions to drive the Future Made in Australia plan, ensuring that the bill is part of a cohesive and well-coordinated policy approach. Educational institutions and vocational training organisations have also endorsed the Australian Skills Guarantee, recognising its importance in addressing the skills gap and providing young Australians with valuable opportunities. TAFE Directors Australia commented: 'The Skills Guarantee is a crucial step towards building a skilled workforce that can meet the demands of a modern economy. It ensures that our education and training systems are aligned with industry need.'</para>
<para>These endorsements from key businesses and industry groups reflect a broad consensus on the benefits of the Future Made in Australia Bill. It is a policy that addresses the needs of workers, businesses and the environment, aligning with the values and goals of the Albanese Labor government. In my electorate of Spence, we have already seen the positive impact of targeted government investment. Take the example of the defence industry precinct in Edinburgh. This initiative has not only created hundreds of jobs but also fostered a thriving ecosystem of innovation and collaboration between local businesses and educational institutions. As a result, that precinct has become a hub of both community and commercial activity, attracting talent and investment from across the region.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister has previously stated, these investments are about creating opportunities for Australians, ensuring that our regions thrive and that every community shares in our nation's prosperity. This highlights the transformative power of strategic investment, demonstrating how government support can drive community growth and development. The Future Made in Australia Bill builds on this success, ensuring that these benefits are expanded and sustained no matter what the world throws at us. Furthermore, the bill's emphasis on local procurement ensures that government spending directly benefits Australian businesses and workers. This policy support local economies, creating jobs and stimulating economic activity in communities across the country. By prioritising Australian-made goods and services, we are strengthening our domestic supply chains and supporting the growth of our manufacturing sector.</para>
<para>I anticipate that some members opposite may argue that this bill is too 'big government' for their liking. However, I don't take lectures on the free market from a party that has one policy written up, in their finest Crayola, that would have the government build, pay for and maintain several expensive and risky nuclear power plants. Really, was a planned economy in their plans? It took them a few decades to transition from Menzies to Marx—horseshoe theory eat your heart out! I think the invisible hand of the market is scratching a lot of the heads when you try to find what a real Liberal is these days.</para>
<para>Global trends show that strategic government investment is crucial for both economic resilience and competitiveness. Countries like Germany and South Korea have successfully revitalised their manufacturing sectors through targeted government support, and there is no reason we cannot do the same. The argument to not support the industry relying on subsidies was thrown around constantly by the media in the months leading up to the last handful of automated manufacturing plants closing their doors. Strategic investment in key industries is not a radical idea; it is a proven strategy for driving economic growth and stability.</para>
<para>Critics may also claim that the renewable energy investments are too risky or that they divert resources from traditional industries. To this, I say the future of our economy depends on our ability to innovate and adapt. The transition to renewable energy is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic opportunity that will create jobs, drive growth and position Australia as a leader in a global industry. Furthermore, the National Interest Framework ensures that all investments are carefully assessed and aligned with national priorities. This is not about reckless spending; it is about making strategic decisions that will benefit all Australians. The framework provides a robust mechanism for ensuring that every dollar invested delivers maximum benefit, supporting economic growth and resilience.</para>
<para>It is also important to address concerns about the cost of these investments. The reality is that the cost of inaction is far greater. Failing to invest in our manufacturing sector or workforce, and in our renewable energy capabilities, would leave us at a significant competitive disadvantage and undermine our economic security. But the Future Made in Australia Bill represents a government taking that necessary action—a step towards rebuilding our manufacturing sector, creating secure jobs, and ensuring a resilient and sustainable economic future, with a Made in Australia logo on top. That symbol, when placed on an item, is something coveted, and not just by the people across the globe—because one thing we can all agree on is that if something is made here, it is worth buying.</para>
<para>We would argue that ensuring things continue to be made in Australia is not just in our national interest—at times it can be a matter of national security to maintain this capability. 'Made in Australia' was a big part of our past as well, particularly in my electorate of Spence, but also across so many parts of this country. Our proud history of manufacturing should not be relegated to the past, because the Albanese Labor government—much like most Australians, much like institutional investors, business groups, unions, universities and TAFEs—want to see one thing moving forward into the future: a future made in Australia, a future made in South Australia, a future made in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, a future made in my electorate of Spence. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This obviously is a well-meaning thought, but it's complete and utter fantasia. It's fantasia dressed up as a policy. If you want to create manufacturing, we all support that. There are three fundamental components of it. The first one is wages and labour relations. No-one is advocating for lower wages. With our competitive nature, we are at a disadvantage to India, Bangladesh and China, nor do we ever want our wages to be where theirs are. There is no competitive advantage in wages. Resources are the next component. Resources are at a global price. There is no advantage in resources. They're at a global price, less transport; that is it. The price of coal is the price of coal, and the differentiation is transport.</para>
<para>But there is one thing that we used to have an advantage in—and it's gone—and that was energy. Power was the mechanism that got us in the game. You can have as many subsidies as you want; it is not going to last unless you get your energy process under control. This idea that you're going to drive the Australian economy on a windmill is complete and utter fantasy, yet you're religiously attached to it. You're almost pathologically attached to it. If we got all the speakers up and asked, 'But what's your position on trying to drive Australia on swindle factories, painting the fields a photovoltaic black and covering us with 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines?' and then they sat back and said, 'Oh, we want a manufacturing industry,' it'd be just childlike and illogical.</para>
<para>Let's look at your most recent one: you're going to set up a solar panel factory for Liddell. What's it called? Sunsol or something?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sunshot, I think. I don't know.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Whatever it is. You've got Mike Cannon-Brookes and Malcolm Turnbull swanning around saying how wonderful it is. They're putting people off. It's going well, but they've just retrenched 35. This goes to show you the fantasia of it. Going out like this is the height of naivety. It means that you've never actually been in business yourself, and that is a crucial difference.</para>
<para>Business is an interesting concept that, unfortunately, is rarely experienced on the other side of this House. If you're in business the first thing you've got to do is make a buck. There's got to be a difference between your costs and what you get, and in this global economy, what you get is overwhelmingly determined by the global price. I'll give you a few instances of where we actually do go alright in Australia: beef, wool, mutton, lamb, cotton, grain, iron ore, coal, gas, gold, copper, bauxite and education. When we look at these industries and we ask: 'Is the government helping them?' the answer is: no, you're working at odds with them. You've just brought in the Nature Repair Market. You want to turn 30 per cent of Australia back to scrub. How on earth does that help the cattle industry?</para>
<para>I was out the other day and had a whole heap of farmers on a front verandah. These are some of the things they've got to put up with. Do you know that, if a bushfire goes through plains country and all of a sudden, where there were no trees, gum trees come back—because bushfires germinate seeds—you're not allowed to clear them? You've got to leave them there. As a result, the land becomes completely and utterly unproductive. You will actually send people to jail if they clear them. Do you know now that, to get firewood from dead trees, people have to get a logging permit? This is the sort of Kafkaesque socialist insanity that has now become part of our economy.</para>
<para>Do you know that, if there's a drought and you go to dig a hole in a named creek—not dam the creek—you can't? So where you've got sand, you're left with nothing for stock to drink. This is how insane it's become: there is an area, Emu Swamp Creek, which is just a dry gully. The only time it ever runs is if there's heavy rain, and then it does so very temporarily, and it's a flood. There are 650 people who work at a blueberry farm on the other side of this creek, and they've got to move product out. The bridge goes; it just runs out. So they said, 'We'll just put in a temporary bridge of dirt,' and people came up, outraged. Why? It was in breach of fish legislation. Fish legislation! What fish was going up there? A grass fish? A flying fish? That'd be about the only fish that would have got up there.</para>
<para>Nonetheless—this is Kafkaesque; this is how it happens; this is what the Labor Party does—they came back and they said, 'Okay, you have to put in pipes.' And I said, 'Pipes! For what?' Nonetheless, they'd asked for it, so they put in pipes—big round ones for the pretend fish on the grass to somehow get through—so the fish could go up. Even if they do go up, I don't know what they're going to do. Are they going to go up and eat rocks? There's nothing there. So they put in the big round pipes. The officials came back. Outrage! They're the wrong type of pipes. They had to be square ones. They needed square ones for the invisible, pretend fish to go up a dry gully that never had fish to go to goodness knows where to do I don't know what. Then they say, 'But we believe in a manufacturing industry and we're completely sensible and this is all going to work.'</para>
<para>The coal industry is almost being thought of as evil. It's the evil coal industry. They can't mention it—'Don't mention coal! Don't mention the coal industry!' The fact is that it's the only reason we've got a surplus. They forgot about that part. All the investment houses are starting to say, 'Actually, the coal industry makes a lot of money,' and their shareholders and the people who are part of it say, 'Why aren't you investing in coal. My friends who are in the coal industry are making a bucketload of money and we're not?' All of a sudden they're changing a little bit, because people inherently, with their super fund, want to have some money at the end of it, and this is a great place to invest. Do you know why? It is because the world is buying coal. I hate to say it, but the world is buying coal—an awful lot of it, more than has ever been bought before, and at a higher price. But, of course, no, you can't have that. It's evil.</para>
<para>There's the cotton industry—yes, evil cotton. It drinks water. So what are they doing? They're taking water out of the Murray-Darling Basin. This is completely counterintuitive. These are the areas where, actually, if you were to invest and if you just let these people alone and you stopped putting your foot on their throats, they would employ more people.</para>
<para>Go to a boning room of an abattoir and you will see that it is the industrial Olympics as they go flat out. There are hundreds of people flat out working, and it's great. You get to see people hard at work. It's about going out there, listening and saying, 'We're going to help those in the meat-processing sector.' Are you doing that? No. Everything you do is about putting more caveats on how people produce beef. In fact, people and banks out there now have to have a net zero plan. Of course, this is inspired by government policy. Even farms have to have net zero plans. That puts so much pressure on small farms.</para>
<para>Do you know what? People now can't be a boilermaker or a fitter and turner or an electrician if they work in a coalmine, because they won't get insurance. Yet you say, 'We believe in jobs.' It's garbage. The last speaker talked about our universities and TAFEs, and these are great institutions, but they're not creating manufacturing jobs. These are not manufacturing jobs. They are the service sector, and they do a great job.</para>
<para>There's this counterintuitive Peter Pan fantasy, and we see it in its absolute, black-and-white form in country areas. Areas around us are looking like hell now. Complete fields of what was farming country are completely black with photovoltaic panels. It's being destroyed, as is the farming produce that came out of there. They say you can graze underneath these photovoltaic panels. Have you gone out and had a look at them? There is no grazing under photovoltaic panels, except by rats or maybe a couple of rabbits. There is no grazing going on there. What type of cattle would graze under there? Dexters? And they would starve to death. That's the fantasia of this policy. It's an absolute fantasia.</para>
<para>If we want cheap energy, we could go to water. Okay, we've got to comply with the fantasy. Let's look at baseload. Right, hydro—we're going to have to build ourselves some dams. No, we can't dam the creeks. Why can't we do that? It comes back to the fish. Apparently fish don't live in water! Let's come back to the real fish that actually do live in water. You can't do it. There's not a plan for a dam in the Labor Party—not one. If you want hydroelectricity, you've got to have a dam, and then you've got baseload power.</para>
<para>Ultimately we think, 'Where do we go?'</para>
<para>Let's think about where the rest of the world has gone and how they're doing it, how they're getting cheap power like the Fins, the French, the Chinese, the Indians and the Indonesians. Basically, every country in the OECD either has it or uses it, except us, and that is nuclear—nu-cle-ar; three syllables. So we say, 'Okay, let's go nuclear,' and they say, 'Oh, no, no, no, we can't do that.' Why? 'Oh, that's just thinking too much; we can't do that.' Why? Because they're happy in the cave of 1986! It's secure in the cave of 1986.</para>
<para>They have this vision that every nuclear plant is somehow Chernobyl, and they're not. That was a Soviet plant built in the late 1960s. It was a boiling-type plan. It was a graphite-moderated, dual-purpose reactor for the creation of, amongst other things, plutonium for atomic weapons. The enrichment percentage was 98 per cent. We're talking about three to five per cent enrichment, a different rock to boil water, to create steam, to turn a turbine. Black rocks, but you don't like them. So we're going to another rock, uranium, but apparently, that rock is immoral. It's immoral, like the black rock. What other alternative do you put up? Are we going to do it on windmills and solar panels?</para>
<para>Look at the power price. Forget about what the minister says; forget about what I say. The only truth you need to take comes in an envelope with a little window in it, called your power bill, and it is going through the roof. In the last quarter, it went up by six per cent. And they say, 'But it would have gone up by more without our subsidies.' Quod erat demonstrandum, QED, which means the power price is a fiasco. It would have gone up by over 12 per cent. And you reckon that's going to run a manufacturing industry. On what planet in the solar system can you possibly run a manufacturing industry with an energy crisis like that? We are out of control. I'll tell you the proof of how you're going with your manufacturing plan. This is simple. With all the dancing and prancing as the minister comes to the dispatch box, with his rather tight shirt and glamorous ties—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know, I have no fashion statements. I've got no fashion. I don't pretend to have any. That's the difference. This is the thing. If your plan was so good, there are some very big companies out there, multiple billion-dollar companies, and these people would be lined up at the door to come to Australia. Siemens, BMW, Hewlett-Packard, Rolls-Royce, General Motors and General Electric would be lined up saying: 'We're going to Australia. They're so clever; they've got it all worked out. Go now because Mr Bowen's saying the power prices are going to go through the floor. Let's line up now!' Not one of them wants to come here. In fact, they're all running for the door. They've worked out that this place is a basket case under the Labor Party. It's a complete and utter basket case! How do they solve it? They say, 'Oh, we'll have a piece of legislation and throw a bucket of money.' It would be better to get in your Comcar and, as you're driving home, pour it out the window. That would have more efficacy than this policy, which we just can't support.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On change, Walt Disney once said, 'Times and conditions change so rapidly that we must keep our aim constantly focused on the future'. This quote is relevant to the bills before us today. In fact, we were talking about Fantasia not long ago. For certain, governments must meet today's challenges. The Albanese government, most recently in the 2024 budget, did this by outlining a suite of announcements to address the cost-of-living pressures faced by Australians everywhere. Tax cuts, energy relief and capping the cost of PBS medicines are just part of that suite of policies. As Walt Disney said, governments need to look beyond the horizon. They need to see beyond immediacy and cast forward to the future. It is called leadership, and this bill is an excellent example of just that.</para>
<para>The bill of course has its origins in the recent budget delivered by the Treasurer, but it also has origins in Labor's very own DNA and ethos. In Bowman Hall in Blacktown, back in November 1972, Gough Whitlam famously said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The decision we will make for our country … is a choice between the past and the future, between the habits and fears of the past, and the demands and opportunities of the future.</para></quote>
<para>Labor is never afraid of looking at the future. We've been the government of vision and change: think Medicare, think superannuation, think the NDIS. These have built and shaped our nation for the better, and, for certain, we will never be constrained by the habits and fears of the past like those opposite. They are paralysed in the past, looking for answers in old encyclopedias and almanacs in an age of broadband and wireless connectivity. Indeed, the very title of the bill before us displays the confidence of the Albanese government and its confidence in Australians and Australia's future.</para>
<para>Australia can't rely on the actions of other countries to secure our future. We must do it ourselves. We will do it ourselves. This bill will help Australia to do just that. Labor's plan for a future made in Australia is simple. We want Australia to be a country that makes more things here, because making things here will grow our economy and create good jobs. We'll put the talents of our people and our incredible natural resources to work, making things here so we are not simply shipping everything overseas and importing them back as finished products. We know this is possible, because it's already happening.</para>
<para>The measures outlined in this bill will ensure that Australia benefits from the global transition to net zero, that Australia can unlock private investment in the industries of the future and that Australians benefit from the new jobs and opportunities that that brings. This bill contains several components to help implement the Albanese government's Future Made in Australia plan. The first will be to embed the government's National Interest Framework, helping to identify sectors where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage within the net zero economy and helping to better align economic incentives with the national interest.</para>
<para>By legislating the framework, the investment community will have the certainty they need to invest in scale in future industries. The framework includes two streams: the net zero transformation scheme and the economic resilience and security stream. The net zero transformation scheme will cover those sectors where Australia could have a comparative advantage in a net zero economy and where public investment is likely to be needed for the sector to make significant contributions to emissions reduction. The economic resilience and security stream covers the sectors where a level of domestic capability is necessary for Australia's economic resilience and security but where the private sector will not provide the necessary investment without government support. Both of these streams are critical, and legislating them will ensure that there is certainty for the communities investing in these issues.</para>
<para>It is vital there is a legislated framework to help identify those critical sectors Australia can excel in. It will ensure not only that Australian communities can benefit from the transition to net zero but also that our economic resilience can. At the direction of the Treasurer, the Treasury may also conduct independent sector assessments to assess whether areas of the economy also align with the National Interest Framework and how government can reduce barriers to investment within those sectors. These assessments will also be made public to ensure proper transparency in government decision-making. And to ensure that both public and private investment benefit local workers and businesses in our community, a set of community benefit principles will be applied to the Future Made in Australia supports.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wants more safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions while investments are made in more training and skills development for the Australian workforce. These principles will promote better collaboration with local communities, such as First Nation communities and those directly affected by the net zero transition, and will strengthen Australia's local supply chains and industrial capabilities.</para>
<para>The bills will establish the Future Made in Australia plans as an avenue to implement the community benefit principles, with further details to satisfy these plan requirements subject to consultation on a program-by-program basis. Additionally, the bills identify the Future Made in Australia supports which community benefit principles apply to. These include initial supports such as the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, as well as certain investments which are considered for funding under the expanded National Interest Account of Export Finance Australia. The minister will be able to add other supports which will be subject to the community benefit principles.</para>
<para>These bills also make amendments to the Export Finance Australia legislation to allow EFA to make domestically focused investments to fund projects that align with the Future Made In Australia framework streams. Amendments will also be made to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act, ensuring that ARENA can support sectors that are critical to net-zero transition. ARENA's funding will be futureproofed by creating a limited special appropriation within its legislation and an additional fourth object that will be added to the ARENA Act, which is to contribute to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement. This explicit reference to global emission reductions will enable ARENA to support the development and manufacture of renewable energy products for export that will contribute to the decarbonisation of the global economy and also the Australian economy. Further amendments to ARENA will enable it to meet its increased responsibilities and role as part of the net-zero transition already taking place in the Australian economy.</para>
<para>This chamber will have noted that at times I invoke the words of my predecessor in Werriwa the 21st Prime Minister. I do so for good reason, for Gough was first and foremost a proud Australian. He was a prime minister unashamedly confident about Australia's place in the region and the world. Further, he had an unshaken confidence in the ability of all Australians. He didn't live in the past. His maxim, 'contemporary relevance', dictated his life's work and the direction that he saw for this country. This bill before us reinforces the confidence of our latest Labor government and our latest Labor Prime Minister. It does not look back, and it doesn't shy away from future challenges. It sets out a broad and ambitious agenda in a manner that is achievable.</para>
<para>We cannot and must not look over our shoulders, because we don't have time to waste. Right now, the world is moving forward to renewable energy, and for us, as the sunniest, windiest continent on the earth, this is our moment. More than anywhere else on the earth, Australia is set to gain new jobs, new industries, and new skills. Our future is made in Australia. That's what A Future Made in Australia is all about—a stronger economy made right here. But we need a government prepared to step up and do its part to fund apprenticeships, attract investment, build infrastructure, boost industries and back the ideas. That's what this bill does. I commend the bill to the House in the full confidence it reflects the confidence we should have in ourselves as a nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition will oppose Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. The more we hear about this plan, the more it does not stack up. This is a plan for pork-barrelling, not a strong economy. This is a plan for more government, not more business investment.</para>
<para>Australia, of course, has a proud and strong manufacturing industry, and the coalition has always supported it. In fact, the industry was a lot stronger just two years ago under the coalition government. We know that because during the COVID-19 years there were over one million jobs in manufacturing, and right now we hear the Albanese Labor government minister say there are 900,000 jobs in manufacturing, so that's a 10 per cent fall in manufacturing jobs in two years alone. Yet the government have this new bill. They somehow want to make a future around it and get it going, but they forget to tell people that 10 per cent of the jobs have already gone in the last two years. How many more of those 900,000 jobs are currently struggling because of the inflationary environment and the decisions that the Albanese Labor government have made over the last two years. In order for manufacturing to continue to grow, and for those businesses that are currently engaged in manufacturing and the people that they employ, requires strong economic management, which is not what we're seeing from the current Labor government. It requires economic management that gets back on track in getting the basics right.</para>
<para>When I talk to manufacturing businesses in my own electorate—and I do get around and talk to quite a few in Narangba and Clontarf—they tell me that the No. 1 issue in order for them to be competitive is affordable and reliable energy. The Prime Minister promised before the last election in 2022 that energy would be cheaper and lower under his government. What's happened is we've seen anything but that. He particularly made the commitment to consumers—to mum and dads and to households—that their electricity bill would fall by $275. That has been completely abandoned by the government. We never hear the Prime Minister or the Minister for Climate Change and Energy talk about that at all anymore. They've completely abandoned it, despite promising it almost a hundred times publicly before the last election.</para>
<para>What's even worse than the fact that for most households energy has gone up by a thousand dollars, is that for businesses it's completely doubled in many cases. For manufacturing business in particular, their energy bill in the last two years under the Albanese Labor government has doubled. In some cases it hasn't quite doubled, but it has gone up very significantly. So it doesn't surprise me at all that if 10 per cent of manufacturing jobs have gone in the last two years under this government, that would be one of the main reasons. Yet the government come in here, and say that, 'We've got a plan to make energy more affordable.'</para>
<para>One of the first things the Prime Minister said today in his speech on this very bill was that Australia is going to be 'a renewable energy superpower'. What does that mean? The government continually says, 'We're going to be a superpower. We're going to be up there with the United States or perhaps China.' People think a superpower is generally a military term, but Labor say we're going to be 'a renewable energy superpower'. How come businesses' bills have doubled? Some superpower. All we're doing is putting employees out of jobs and manufacturers out of business. We've lost 10 per cent of them under the Albanese government. So it's a throwaway line that the Labor Party and this Prime Minister use around being a renewable energy superpower. It means absolutely nothing.</para>
<para>Their plan around being renewable energy superpower is buying Chinese manufactured solar panels and Chinese manufactured wind farms, and closing down Australian mined coal and gas and not considering the option for Australian mined uranium, when other countries around the world are considering that as well.</para>
<para>When they were in opposition, this government came in here and banged on for 10 years that, 'We've got to do more for climate change.' Yet they won't consider modern nuclear power. The Deputy Prime Minister had the audacity to come here yesterday and act like the class clown when he said, 'The coalition in relation to AUKUS was a thought bubble.' Give me a break. It was the Leader of the Opposition and the former Prime Minister who got AUKUS running.</para>
<para>So we're going to have eight modern nuclear powered submarines around the country, but we can't have seven modern nuclear power sites on land. And they say they're for climate change, yet modern nuclear power has zero emissions. It's alright to buy Chinese-made wind farms and it's alright to buy Chinese-made solar panels. According to this Prime Minister—for the kids in the gallery—we're going to be a renewable energy superpower. It's just outrageous and it's not truthful.</para>
<para>He also said we're lowering the cost of living, when the manufacturers that I speak to tell me anything but. The cost of doing business is going up considerably, and when the cost of doing business goes up, have a guess what happens. It's all passed on to the goods and services that every one of us goes out and buys. The people I represent in Petrie and people in other electorates around this country go out and buy these products that businesses sell. It's all passed on. It doesn't matter if you're ordering a parmigiana down at the local tavern, buying clothes for work or a car, paying your power bill at home or whatever it may be. If the cost of doing business goes up, which is what we're seeing under the Albanese Labor government, the cost for consumers goes up. We're not a renewable energy superpower, whatever that means. This government is not lowering the cost of living. Australians know that in the last two years the cost of living has gone completely through the roof—completely. So, when you hear the government speak, you're got to take what they're actually saying with a grain of salt, because this government has broken election promises and can't be trusted.</para>
<para>In order to get manufacturing going well and to reverse the 10 per cent of job losses that have already happened in the last two years under this government, we need affordable and reliable energy, and the coalition has a plan for that. That includes renewables as well as modern nuclear power and gas.</para>
<para>You also need a plan to make sure that workplaces are flexible. The difference between us and the government is we don't govern and make legislation for our union donors, because they don't donate to us. Unions represent about eight per cent of the private sector, yet the government—particularly the Leader of the House in his new role and his previous role—legislates for unions and what they particularly want. When you're doing that, you're only legislating for eight per cent of workers in the economy. What about the other 92 per cent? They've just got to wear the extra cost, because not every workplace has the same rights that some of the unions operating within the Labor Party have.</para>
<para>We also see opposite a government that increases regulation. Right now, the Assistant Treasurer, the minister that I shadow, by regulation, is about to put more regulation on accountants and bookkeepers right around the country. That's just one example. At the stroke of a pen, there will be a whole lot of new regulation, so when people are doing their tax or whatever, once again, that's additional cost. It's the same with manufacturing. In order to improve manufacturing and to get it back, we need affordable and reliable energy, which the coalition has a plan for; flexible workplaces, so not just legislating for unions; less regulation, which is absolutely key; and an incentive based tax system.</para>
<para>In my electorate, a lot of the manufacturers are small and family businesses, middle-sized businesses, perhaps with 50 employees or 100 employees. They're businesses like Packer Leather. It's a family run business, pretty well the only manufacturing business left in Australia that manufactures kangaroo leather for RM Williams boots, Sherrin footballs, kangaroo cricket balls and Akubra hats. They also do a bit of work with rabbit leather and cattle. What happens there? They're being taxed more, so their costs have gone up.</para>
<para>It's even simple things. Often family businesses have super funds, self-managed super funds. Perhaps they've put money into it, and now the government's come in and said, if you've got $3 million in your super or if your business premises is owned in your super—they promised before the last election they wouldn't tax it. Now they're going to double the tax rate on super funds over $3 million and put in unrealised capital gains. There might be a building that this manufacturer owns within their self-managed super fund that they bought 30 or 40 years ago for $2 million. It's now worth $10 million. It's a family owned business. This government is saying, 'We want to tax you on everything over $3 million.' So, if the building is worth $10 million, $7 million will be taxed—and not when it's sold but right now, so it's an unrealised capital gain. So you get manufacturers that have been in business for a long time asking: 'Why do I bother? Why am I here working hard, when the government just wants to hit me?'</para>
<para>That's what this government is doing, and a lot of Labor governments have done this over the years. It often takes the Liberal-National coalition to come back in and reduce regulation, reduce tax, make sure workplaces are flexible and not just governed for unions, and make sure energy is affordable. If the government is completely serious about making sure manufacturers do well, that's an agenda they could implement.</para>
<para>Soaring energy prices are a pain for manufacturers all around the country. I mentioned Packer Leather, but it is also the case for other companies, like East Coast Bullbars in Clontarf, in my electorate. For everyone out there who has a Toyota HiLux, a Mazda BT-50, an Isuzu D-MAX, a LandCruiser or a Land Rover: often the manufacturers will sell you a steel bullbar imported from overseas. In my electorate, in Clontarf, you can buy an aluminium bullbar that's manufactured in Clontarf. Again, they've told me that their energy bill has gone up under this government—not good for manufacturing.</para>
<para>For AJ Plastics in Geebung, in the federal seat of Lilley, since December 2022 their electricity bill per month has increased significantly. It hasn't quite doubled, but it's gone up significantly. They're a small manufacturing company, and the bill had been about $460 a month but is now $750. That all adds up. It's all additional costs. That's an increase of around $3,600 per year for another manufacturer up in Brisbane. And this small plastics manufacturer said that they've noticed the hit. This is happening all around the country. It's not just in my seat and the neighbouring seat up in Brisbane; it's all 151 seats around the country.</para>
<para>Productivity is at a 60-year low under the Albanese government, too. And you wonder why your prices have gone up! It's because productivity is down by almost six per cent under the Albanese Labor government. And when productivity is down, if the wages are up—wages are going up, because people can't cope with the cost of living—here's the business ticking along, and wages are up and productivity is down, and we're producing less at a higher cost. And we're wondering why we're all paying more! That is what is happening, in reality, under the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Often that's the case, because we have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer with very little experience in the private sector. I mean, before I came into this place, I'd never had a government job, never worked for a politician. But in the case of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, all they've had is government jobs—that's it. I think the Prime Minister worked in a bank for 12 months. So, how would he know or be able to consult on what's best for manufacturing? He gets all his information from union donors, and they're writing the rules, and under this Future Made in Australia Bill, they'll be the ones who win.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to stand here as the proud Labor member for Swan, as someone who has probably more than 15 years of experience working in the corporate sector and as someone who started her career in steelcap boots on a mine site. And I would say that the Albanese Labor government fundamentally understands what we need to do for our country, what we need to do for organisations and companies, and what we need to do for workers—and that is exactly what the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 does. So, I am thrilled to be talking here, not just as the daughter of a metalworker, not just as an engineer, but as a proud Australian. And I'm a proud Australian who knows what we are capable of.</para>
<para>This bill is not just about vision; this is about tangible actions, and we have the ability to seize the moment right here. Our goal is clear. To put it simply, we want Australians in good, secure jobs building things right here in Australia. This is not a dream. This is the cornerstone of Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill. This is a pivotal moment in our history. The world is undergoing the biggest industrial transformation it has seen since the industrial revolution, and this comes with both opportunities and significant risks.</para>
<para>It is important for this parliament to recognise that the global movement towards net zero is part of a changing world. We have the ability to either seize the moment and embrace the opportunities or, alternatively, be left behind. By building a more diverse and strong economy powered by clean energy and by creating secure, well-paid jobs, Australia can stay an important player in the global economy during this transition. If we do nothing, Australia risks being left behind. Australian workers will lose, and Australia will lose, but, let's be honest, the world will lose. The pathway to net zero emissions runs right through our backyard.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister said back in April, there is a race on for jobs and opportunity, it is a global race and Australia must be in it to win it. We must be in it to win it, because, if we don't—if we fail to act now—we won't even reach the finish line. The race will be over before we get started, and that's exactly what would happen if we left it to the coalition. For a decade, when it came to manufacturing, we stood still and then we started moving backwards. We are bearing the cost of that lack of vision and the lack of action by the coalition. We need to seize this moment.</para>
<para>We can lead the charge, ensuring that our industries thrive and that secure, well-paid jobs are created, not just in our big cities but also in our regional and industrial heartlands. Australia can't have a resilient economy if we only rely on sheep, wheat and dirt. By going up the value chain and when we sell our exports for more, we also increase the complexity of our commodities and our export markets. What this also means is that we have more secure jobs and we are less vulnerable to the changes in commodity prices. Let's be honest: this has real, tangible impacts in people's families and in their homes. What it is about is job security.</para>
<para>My dad was a proud fitter and turner. He probably picked up his trade when he was 16 years old. He worked for more than four decades as a proud tradesperson. My parents, out of all the countries in the world, moved to Australia and ended up in Kalgoorlie. My dad ended up at Kambalda, a nickel mining town. The thing that I know we've seen is that, when commodity prices go down, people lose their jobs en masse. My heart goes out to the nickel workers that are experiencing this right at this moment.</para>
<para>What we need to do as a nation is actually increase the value of what we sell so we can actually sell our products for more and have more secure jobs. This is something that's really important to people all across Australia, including the people in my electorate of Swan. These are people who rely on manufacturing for their livelihoods. A secure job for them and their children is what is important to thousands of people who work in manufacturing in my electorate. The 2021 census data revealed that over 4,000 people are directly employed by manufacturing in Swan. That's workers and their families who are reliant on a thriving and prosperous industry for their security and their future.</para>
<para>These are workers like the steel fabricators who work at Phoenix Metalform in Welshpool, an industrial suburb in my electorate of Swan. Phoenix Metalform is one of Australia's leading providers of sheet-metal building products and sheet-metal fabrication in Perth, in Western Australia. The team at Phoenix Metalform use innovative technologies to manufacture high-quality products in the heart of Swan. These are the bread and butter of our manufacturing base, and I am here to support them.</para>
<para>This government believes in a future made in Australia. That belief drives us to act swiftly, putting in place programs and reforms that will diversify our economy, build sovereign capability and create a pipeline of well-paid jobs now and into the future. The focus of the Albanese government is on supporting more businesses like Phoenix Metalform to invest, grow and innovate. We have faith in Australian ideas, Australian workers, Australian scientists and Australian businesses. We need to make more things here. We know that we can make more things here. We are a smart country. We are also a hardworking country. We know that we have all the right ingredients that we need right here—our people, our capability and our natural resources—to compete with the best in the world.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia legislation is designed to unlock private sector investment, building a stronger, more diversified and resilient economy, powered by renewables. The bill represents the largest pro-manufacturing package in Australian history. It has been crafted to ensure that Australia captures the benefits of the massive shifts happening globally. At the heart of this package is the new National Interest Framework, which is a robust sector assessment process. It's in the bill in order to help the Australian government make smart public investments that trigger large-scale private investment for the benefit of the country. It is designed to evaluate industries that can significantly cut emissions at good costs where Australia could lead the way in the long term. It also focuses on sectors where building up local expertise is the key to keeping our economy strong and secure.</para>
<para>Also, at the heart of this bill is the establishment of the community benefit principles that will guide all Future Made in Australia initiatives. These principles will be used to boost investment in local communities, support Australian industries, strengthen supply chains and develop skills. They also aim to promote diverse workforces, secure jobs and ensure that tax laws are indeed followed. Decision-makers will apply these principles to every Future Made in Australia initiative and make sure that they are enforced properly, including those detailed in the plan. These measures will ensure that our investments align with our national interest, particularly in critical areas such as solar panels and battery supply chains. We will invest heavily in these sectors under the economic resilience and security stream of the Future Made in Australia Bill because it in our national interest to do so.</para>
<para>This legislation isn't just about the big end of town; it's about working hand in hand with the supply chain, with small and medium enterprises and with engineering firms that employ apprentices and tradies, the very people who do the hard work in the sector. It's about ensuring these industries have the initiatives they need to deliver good local jobs particularly in industrial centres where resources and energy capabilities are strong. Australia's history as a resource powerhouse gives us a unique advantage as we move into this economy. If you think about it, we have the resources above the ground, with our amazing solar resources and our wind resources, but we also have the geological resources below the ground.</para>
<para>As 97 per cent of our trading partners move to net zero emissions, Australia must adjust or risk falling behind. If we get it right and adopt a Future Made in Australia approach, we can capture this advantage, lift up the value chain and secure our place as a renewable energy superpower. I am excited to see the interest in hydrogen and low-cost renewable energy for the industry. I realise that those opposite think the hydrogen industry is maybe a joke or fake news. Let me tell you that it is not. It is really important that we have a look at this, because what we're looking at is energy density for us to be able to move heavy industries such as mining trucks. Who knows what the possibilities are for this? But we need to look at net-zero emission possibilities to continue our resource sector.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to working with businesses and industry to deliver the best outcome for local communities, starting in places such as Gladstone. Our legislation is clear and carefully outlined. At its core it introduces production tax credits for firms that manufacture within the scope of the scheme. This is actually smart practice. This is pretty exciting. Industry is very excited to hear about it, and I can tell you that Western Australian companies are very excited about it. This is the way the world is moving. Whether it's critical mineral processing, iron processing or steel production, eligible firms will receive tax credits when they produce here in Australia. This is a crucial step in moving Australia up the value chain and creating good jobs in our regions and outer suburbs.</para>
<para>This is a government that believes in a future made in Australia. I think of the history of the resource sector. We have managed to achieve innovation and capability in some of the harshest conditions in the world. Being able to solve technical problems and work out how you liberate minerals in a really remote and isolated community is tough, but we worked out how to do that. And you know what? The complex challenges that we have facing us are tricky, but I have faith that Australia has the capability to solve them.</para>
<para>I commend the government's commitment to build a future made in Australia, a future with a strong and diverse economy and a future that provides greater opportunity and job security for everyone, not just a few. I call on everyone in this House to get behind Australia's manufacturing future and support the creation of more secure, well-paid jobs. Failing to do so means more of the same. It means going backwards, not forwards, where we need to be going. Together we can build a future where our economy is stronger, our communities are thriving and our jobs are secure and well paid. This is why I commend the bill to the House, and I encourage members in the House to all get behind it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are some great cliches just in the name of the bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. There are great cliches in the talking points for the government as well. Let me open by saying that just about every bill that comes into this chamber from the government makes 'made in Australia' almost impossible, whether it be energy laws, IR laws or the red and green tape that they are adding to businesses in our community every single time they bring legislation in to this chamber.</para>
<para>As shadow trade minister, I want to really focus on some of the changes that will be made to the export finance authority here in Australia. I want to start by saying that the export finance authority here in Australia does an excellent job. They're a great organisation and a great independent part of government. They have had a role to play in our business community and our export markets for a long time, and they get a lot of support from both sides of this chamber. Just to explain to some of the listeners who maybe don't know a lot about Export Finance Australia, what they're about is helping exporters grow in Australia and find markets for their products and their services overseas. It's pretty straightforward. They have a commercial account where they'll go out and look for gaps in the market. They look for people who've got an idea, a product or a service and are struggling to get finance through normal ways, and they will look at gaps within that and help people do that. They have quite a healthy balance sheet. They're of no cost to government. They don't lose money on that. They're skilful at what they do and they've done a great job.</para>
<para>There's also the National Interest Account, which is a different part of the EFA. What does the National Interest Account do? It's more targeted than the commercial account. There are four facilities within it: the Critical Minerals Facility, the Defence Export Facility, the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific and the Southeast Asia Investment Financing Facility. You can see just from the names of those that there's a focus on that. There's a South-East Asian focus, a Pacific focus or a defence focus. Again, they are looking for gaps that may be important for our national interest or strategic areas of Australia that we need to look at. There are also some transactions that they've done aside from that to New Guinea, PsiQuantum and Digicel.</para>
<para>What this legislation's doing, as a broader picture, is bringing in two new streams. One stream is economic resilience and security, and the other is net zero transformation. I have massive questions about this because—let's take the net zero one to start with—this to me is sounding like the government's going to pick some winners. With all due respect to anyone who may work within government and to the people advising them, I have huge issues with that when there is a competitive market, a private market, already operating in that space. This is one where we might just see a minister go, 'Look, I've got a good feeling about this today; let's throw some taxpayer dollars at it.'</para>
<para>When we talk about net zero transformation, we're talking about moving to net zero by 2050. Every country in the world, every private enterprise in the world and a lot of private investment funds in the world are looking at that transition and investing in technology to do that transition across the field. Whether it be battery technology or industry-specific technologies, they're looking to do that. The fact that we might think there's a bureaucrat somewhere who's got a better idea of how to invest that money—above the skill level within the private sector, who are targeted on this—I can't see that.</para>
<para>I can see that there are gaps. As I said before, there are gaps from the financing world, whether it be venture capital or investment funds. There are gaps when you look at things that we might want to help exporters do in the South Pacific. There might be things exporters want to do within South-East Asia or things we want to do in defence where we need to fill that void, and, again, the EFA do a good job at that. But, seriously, with the net zero transition, the world is focused on it. Every private investor is focused on it. There are no gaps here, unless a minister in the Labor government says, 'I have a funny feeling about this technology or this part of the industry.'</para>
<para>It doesn't seem to be capped. What are the limits to this within the EFA? How will that be reported? How is that going to happen? Again, there are a lot of questions about the net zero transformation. 'Economic resilience and security' sounds great, but what does that mean? What are the caps on that? How much can be spent on that? Again, it looks to me to be a little bit uncapped. I've had a chat with a few people who will be involved in this. I don't see any caps on that.</para>
<para>I want to say again that EFA do a fantastic job. I want to commend them on the job they do. Again, they've had bipartisan support in this chamber for a long time. I know some of the people who work there, and they're highly skilled people and have given great help for export markets within specific sectors, whether it be geographic or specific industry sectors. They have a commercial account that I think is very high achieving, again, helping export markets and exporters in this country. But for this government to basically bring in an uncapped focus for the EFA on net zero transformation, I think, should not be done. It's not a market where there is a gap. The world is focused on it, private investors are focused on it, and I don't see the reason for that.</para>
<para>I also note that it even takes away the export focus of it. Is this fund just going to be focused on Australia's net zero transformation and be put to that? EFA was set up to focus on exporting as its primary motivation. I don't get that within these two new streams of net zero transformation and economic resilience and security. I think it's changing the focus of EFA, too, which is unfortunate. For this reason and many others that members on this side are talking about, we won't be supporting the bill.</para>
<para>To the net zero transformation again, you might say: 'Maybe we should focus on it. Maybe the government should get involved.' We have ARENA and we have the CEFC already as federal government agencies who are focused on that area. To bring in another one, I think, is superfluous. I don't think it's good to bring EFA into it, given it has a non-export focus as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in strong support of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024.. A Future Made in Australia is a blueprint for sustainable economic growth, for reindustrialising our nation and for national security. It is a pushback against the politics of pessimism that has sent our manufacturing sector into meltdown and sent secure, well-paid jobs to the wall.</para>
<para>In order to appreciate the enormity and the impact of A Future Made in Australia, you first have to look at the past. It wasn't that long ago, around 11 years ago, that a Liberal Treasurer stood not far from where I am now and basically said, 'Either you're here or you're not.' Those were the words spoken, and the next day Holden announced that they were leaving Australia, and two months later so did Toyota. That was the end of 69 years of an automotive industry in this country that mass-produced excellent vehicles—boarded up, gone. Thousands of jobs were gone, along with the legacy. We missed the EV wave. We missed becoming a destination for well-paid blue- and white-colour jobs. Knowledge workers had no destination in a high-tech industry like cars. We are now a country that supplies the lithium for the battery cells that power the EV revolution and sells it at around $4,000 per tonne, only to buy it back as a $60,000 to $100,000 EV. It doesn't make any sense.</para>
<para>This decline in our manufacturing sector, however, did not happen overnight. It has been death by a thousand cuts—a thousand job cuts, that is. What we have seen is a decline in the complexity of our economy, and complexity is measured as the sophistication of our exports. Out of 133 countries, Australia ranks 93rd, sandwiched between Uganda and Pakistan. In 1995, however, we were ranked 55th. We've dropped 12 places in the last decade. It's been a gradual decline but a decline nevertheless, and these problems have come home to roost. When we carve out the rich countries by looking purely at the countries of the OECD, the picture is even bleaker. Data from 2022 showed that Australia ranks last in the OECD for sovereign manufacturing capability. We actually win the wooden spoon for that one.</para>
<para>This simply cannot continue. It will condemn us to slow, anaemic growth as demands on our public finances from health, aged care, education and housing only increase. The status quo or more of the same is a recipe for lowering our standard of living, not raising it. It has been accepted that two to three per cent is the most Australia can aspire to when it comes to GDP growth per year, and five per cent or more is for highly complex economies like China. We just accept that that's our lot in life. Well, it's not our lot in life. That's not the future this Labor government envisages for Australia. More of the same is simply untenable.</para>
<para>A Future Made in Australia is about value-adding to our abundant natural resources. Rather than picking winners as some claim, we are picking markets—markets where we have a competitive advantage, an edge, if you like. We intend to turn iron ore into green steel, which is needed for wind turbines, for modernising our energy grid, for the built environment and for making cars, which I hope to one day see again made in Australia. It's about turning sand into silicon ingots, which are then sliced wafer thin to turn into solar panels. Some say that we simply can't compete against China. Well, guess what: Australia actually invented the world's most efficient solar panel. We would be mad to turn our back on an innovation like that, so that's why we backed it in with the $1 billion Solar Sunshot program, to see a coal-fired power station in the Hunter turned into a renewable energy zone where these solar panels will be made. This is not a fantasy. It is not a slogan. It is actually happening right now. We will be taking our lithium ore and our critical minerals and processing them here. We may not be able to process all of it, but we can at least take some of the steps in order to value-add before we ship it off.</para>
<para>We need to make vaccines. If there's one thing the pandemic taught us, it's that we must have sovereign capability in making medicines and vaccines.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Literacy and Numeracy</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>During the winter recess of parliament I took the opportunity to attend many schools, where I handed out certificates for my 14th annual Anzac Day writing competition. I was so impressed with the more than 1,100 entries that I received—not just the quantity but, indeed, the quality. Anybody who rubbishes our children these days and says that they're not up to speed with what we were and how we were all those years ago probably hasn't visited a school in recent times.</para>
<para>Alarmingly, today the National Assessment Program–Literacy and Numeracy results became apparent. The NAPLAN results reveal that one in three students are not meeting basic literacy and numeracy expectations. I don't quote the Grattan Institute very often, but its Education Program Director, Dr Jordana Hunter, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In plain English, one third of Australia's children are not on track with their learning.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's almost half a million students around the country that are not where we need them to be.</para></quote>
<para>That is disturbing. When you consider, in particular, that one-third of Indigenous students were categorised as 'need additional support'—three times the national average—you start to get really worried. Yet we spent $450 million last year on the unnecessary Voice referendum, and here we have a failure of this government to protect our most vulnerable Aboriginal students and others.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cunningham Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we all know, mobile offices are a vital part of our work. They allow us to connect directly with the community and meet the wonderful people that we represent. On Wednesday 17 July, I had the pleasure of experiencing just how important these moments can be. While out at a mobile office in Stanwell Park, I was approached by three incredible students from Stanwell Park Public School: Fox, Miller and Emma. These talented young students weren't there just to chat. They were out fundraising for their school's band program during their school holidays. They were there with their very supportive dad, Jonathan. They asked if they could share the space where I had set up my store, and, of course, I gladly agreed.</para>
<para>These students were not only selling delicious homemade cupcakes but were playing wonderful music together for the Stanwell Park community. With a saxophone, clarinet, guitar and a lot of enthusiasm, they played music while selling their delicious treats. It was truly inspiring to see their passion for music and commitment to supporting their school community. Moments like these make our work in the community just so rewarding. I can't wait to see where Fox, Miller and Emma's musical journey will take them. With their passion and enthusiasm, they have a very bright future ahead, and I'm very excited to watch them achieve great things.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sudan</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For more than a year we've seen devastating conflict in Sudan. As other conflicts have raged around the world many feel that the pain and suffering being experienced by the Sudanese community here and around the world has been forgotten. Warring forces have killed thousands of civilians and forced nearly nine million people from their homes. Now, millions of Sudanese people are at risk of famine. Once again, Darfur is burning in what Human Rights Watch has said constitutes war crimes. It's critical that more is done to protect citizens, to evacuate where possible and to assist in the supply of aid and health care.</para>
<para>The Greens are calling on the government to immediately ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided and that we call for peace. Australia must urgently evacuate Australian Sudanese, and the government must call for aid and medicine to be accessible. We urge the government to speak to the Sudanese embassy in Australia and to condemn those responsible for the atrocities. Once again, we call on the government to raise our humanitarian refugee intake, which has been at historic lows for the last five years. We are not currently meeting our humanitarian obligations.</para>
<para>For Sudanese Australians here, we need to see a fair and efficient process for the reuniting of loved ones, not another process filled with uncertainty and delay. The community here in Australia is deeply worried about their families and loved ones. The issues in Sudan are profound, and we need to do all we can to keep people safe and reunited with their families and communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Liberal Party of Australia, National Leadership Forum</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my great pleasure to be one of the co-chairs of the National Leadership Forum alongside the member for Berowra, Julian Leeser MP. I remember when Julian came up to Garma. It might have been last year. But, of course, he resigned from his position because he couldn't stomach the lack of leadership within the party that he is a member of when it came to taking our country forward in terms of reconciliation and a better future for Australia. I make the point that no leader worth his salt lets an opportunity like Garma go by, as they did this year, without turning up and being willing to take part in the conversation about how we continue to talk with each other and take Australia forward.</para>
<para>The National Leadership Forum is an opportunity for both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to talk with a wonderful group of young Australians from all around the country who do come here together. I want to thank the MPs and senators that do take one of those young leaders or a group of those young leaders into their offices. It's not too late if you want to volunteer to do that. When they come into the office of an MP or senator, they talk about their leadership experience and their values. I think that's incredibly important. It's a great opportunity that we have to mentor those coming through—the future leaders of our great country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The residents of Western Sydney have not been impressed with the Albanese Labor government's minister for infrastructure's hoodwinking tactics on our local community. First it was the midnight media releases about flight paths. Then it was ripping millions of dollars from essential road upgrades. Now it is zero consultation with community members about the impacts of Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport flight paths. Last Friday, while a parliamentary Senate hearing was happening in the heart of my electorate, the minister was also in the electorate, but she wasn't facing the people. She was a couple of kilometres down the road launching one of my election commitments of an assistance dog training centre from the 2022 federal election. I didn't get an invite. Minister King, who is from Victoria, came to Penrith and attended the launch of the centre, which coincidentally or not was happening at the exact same time as the Senate hearing on flight path noise that will impact my community.</para>
<para>Thanks to the government's 2023 EIS, we are now the most impacted community, bearing the brunt of the flight paths. I worked so hard to get the hearing to Penrith so local residents could have their say. It's a pity the minister didn't want to join us. Luddenham Progress Association, whose members live within kilometres of the airport, had only one information session—a pop-up on a Sunday in the rain. The EIS got over 8,000 submissions. When is the minister going to stop playing politics with the people in my community?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Terrigal Rugby Club</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to acknowledge Terrigal Rugby Club and its modified training program, which provides younger players living with physical and mental disabilities with training opportunities that are tailored to their capabilities. The concept behind the club's modified training program started in 2019 during COVID-19, which initially inhibited the development of the program. After COVID-19, the program exploded with popularity and continues to grow with new participants. In 2024, the program is aiming to provide up to six training sessions for its participants, supported by the club's senior rugby union players who are involved with helping modify the training sessions and assisting with the development of the participants' skills and knowledge of rugby union.</para>
<para>Allison Farrelly, secretary of Terrigal Rugby Club, has been pivotal in developing the club's modified training program. Allison coordinates and ensures the viability of the program, communicating with the families of participants and helping to grow the concept further. For Allison and all those involved in the program, it is so important that opportunities to play sport—in particular, rugby union—are provided to everyone in our community. I wish to thank Allison for her incredible dedication to strengthening the fabric of our community through sport, as well as Terrigal Rugby Club President Tim Larke for his leadership and support of the program. Lastly, to Terrigal Rugby Club committee members, who have shown phenomenal support for the program, and to the senior players who show up and help facilitate the sessions, you are all champions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wentworth Electorate: Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like people across the country, I watched in awe and pride as Australian Olympians competed on the world stage in Paris. The games were a thrilling showcase of talent, hard work and perseverance, and every athlete should be commended for the years of dedication and training it took to get there, and their families should also be commended for their support. I want to pay particular tribute to those Olympians from Wentworth, including Bronte Campbell, a member of North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club, is only the fifth Australian ever to swim in four Olympics and, even better, she was a member of the women's four x 100 metre free different relay team who won gold. Noah Havid, also a member of North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club, was an integral part of the men's kayak four who won silver. Grae Morris, a member of the Woollahra Sailing Club, won silver in the men's windsurfing, becoming the first Australian since 1992 to win an Olympic windsurfing medal.</para>
<para>In sailing, Olivia Price competed in the women's skiff event, returning for her second Olympic Games since 2012. In athletics, two Olympians who competed in Tokyo returned to the track in Paris, with Rohan Browning contesting the men's 100 metre race and Morgan McDonald running in the men's 5,000 metre race. Maurice Longbottom, a former South Sydney Rabbitohs junior and proud Dharawal man, was part of the men's rugby 7s team that achieved their highest ever placing, coming fourth. In water polo, congratulations to first-time Olympian Jacob Mercep, who plays for the Sydney University Lions.</para>
<para>I commend all the Olympians from Wentworth. You've done your country and community proud.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rigby, Mrs Eleanor</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to acknowledge the 80th birthday this week of one of my beloved residents in Pearce. Eleanor Rigby is a remarkable community leader who has made a significant impact on her community with her work with the Knit and Natter group, located at Pearsall Hocking Community Centre. Since founding the group in 2011, Eleanor has overseen its impressive growth from just six members to over 110, with ages ranging from 20 to 90.</para>
<para>The Knit and Natter group knits clothing, blankets and shawls for various charities including cancer care, Ronald McDonald House and Youth Futures as well as aged care facilities, hospitals and women's refuges. In 2019 alone they donated more than 12,000 items. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Eleanor consistently checked in on the members and delivered yarn to their homes, ensuring the group could continue their charitable work despite the restrictions.</para>
<para>Eleanor's dedication and commitment to the group's mission exemplifies her leadership and passion for community service. In recognition of her outstanding contributions, Eleanor Rigby was honoured as the City of Wanneroo's Senior of the Year in 2021. Her efforts have not only provided significant support for those in need but have also fostered a strong sense of community and friendship among the members of the Knit and Natter group. Happy 80th birthday, Eleanor. We thank you for all you do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Roads</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday, yet another horrific car accident occurred in my electorate at the intersection of the Nepean Highway and Uralla Road within arm's reach of a giant sign I had put up almost a year ago demanding action to fix this intersection. I last rose to speak about it in this place in February, and condemned the Albanese government's delay in affirming the $20 million that had been appropriated for repairs and improvements to this intersection in previous coalition budgets. At that time I pointed out every injury occurring at that intersection from that time forward would lay at their feet. Here we are, six months later, and there's been yet another horrendous accident resulting in hospitalisation.</para>
<para>The Nepean Highway is one of our busiest local roads, with 18,000 vehicles travelling along this part of the highway in Mount Martha every single day. Since 2012 there have been more than 30 serious accidents at the intersection. Five years ago the coalition provided full funding to make this intersection safe. When the Albanese government was elected they threw the funding away by putting it into the 90-day review, which blew out to 180 days, leaving everybody in confusion. At this point, both Labor governments at the state and federal level sit on their hands whilst accidents continue to happen week by week. Ongoing grief and significant injury will be the inevitable result to my residents. It's been fully funded for years, and it's time to get on with it and do the job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Centennial Park Cemetery</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Centennial Park Cemetery in Pasadena is a very special place for Boothby residents to spend time saying goodbye to friends and family and reflecting on their lives. They're also the homes of the Derrick Gardens returned veteran cemetery, and every year on Remembrance Day it's a central place where the community gathers to pay our respects and thank veterans for their service.</para>
<para>Centennial Park is also very important for another reason. In the middle of the suburbs it's an oasis of green, with beautiful gardens that inspire visitors and ecological haven for native and animals. They take their role in the community and ecosystem very seriously. I recently attended the launch of the environmental sustainability plan. They have already managed to reduce their waste to landfill from 200 tonnes a year to seven tonnes a year, their carbon emissions are down by 48 per cent, they generate a third of their electricity from solar panels and they're transitioning to battery-powered equipment. They are capturing rainwater and improving irrigation efficiency, and they plant, on average, 2,500 tube stock per year with Trees For Life. Their new plan focuses on climate adaptation, developing a net zero pathway, while continuing to provide a range of respective end-of-life choices and beautiful spaces for community to come and reflect. I congratulate them on their excellent work, particularly operations manager Mike Rusby, CEO Janet Miller and chair Amanda Heyworth.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care: Maternity Services</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Giving birth at home may not be the choice of all women, but for those who choose to, we must preserve this accessibility and support midwives who provide this valuable service. The proposed Commonwealth insurance product for home births is a significant step forward, but it needs to safeguard the continuity of midwifery care, provide informed choice for women and be cost effective. The lack of community consultation prior to developing this proposed product has caused much angst among women and the midwives who support them. The product references the Australian College of Midwives' consultation and referral guidelines, but it fails to protect the woman's right to informed decision-making and to receive continuity of care by her endorsed midwife. The guidelines state:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… regardless of the level of consultation and/or referral, the midwife will continue to provide midwifery care with the woman in partnership and collaboration with the woman herself, and the medical practitioner …</para></quote>
<para>The product must also protect existing arrangements that allow the second attendant at a home birth not to be an endorsed midwife, ensuring that women in regional areas continue to have access to this birthing option. We can't afford any unintended consequences with this product. The government must get it right.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I met with a group of young retail workers aged 16 and up who all shared the same challenges: they were paid junior rates. Serena, a 19-year-old supermarket worker, told us she receives just 82 cents on the dollar compared to her adult counterparts. Another worker shared that she earns less than the people she manages. I can relate to many of their stories. As many of you know, I worked during my school years to help my parents pay my course fees. This experience taught me firsthand how unfair the system is.</para>
<para>At 18 years of age, a worker earns only 68 cents on the dollar. Young adults don't get discounts on petrol, food, university fees or rent, so why should they be paid less than for doing the same work? Your salary should reflect your ability, not your age. It's time for equal pay for equal work. Adult wages should equal adult wages. I thank the SDA union for their hard work on this important campaign.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bowman Electorate: Redland Bay sporting clubs</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Charlie Buckler Memorial Sporting Fields at Redland Bay are home to the mightily Redland Bay Cyclones Rugby Union Club, the Redland Sharks Cricket Club and the Redland Bay Tennis Club, with public open spaces and a popular off-leash dog area. It is the heart of so much community activity within Redland Bay, a rapidly growing suburb with many new families seeking sporting and recreation opportunities.</para>
<para>In recognising the need to keep pace with growing demand, the previous federal coalition government committed to invest half-a-million dollars towards a brand new shared clubhouse for rugby union and cricket at the Charlie Buckler oval. I'm pleased to report to the House that this project has been completed, with the club collecting their keys this week. I had a sneak peek of the new facility a few weeks ago, and it is the most impressive suburban clubhouse I have ever seen, including modern change rooms, a significant kitchen, an indoor/outdoor dining area and storage capacity that most clubs could only dream about.</para>
<para>The catalytic federal investment has also enabled council to undertake complementary works to reconfigure the fields, install a new irrigation system, add more car parking, improve connectivity with additional pathways, add new cricket nets and have a reconfigured off-leash area. It's a wonderful example of what's possible when you have a responsive federal government that proactively seeks to partner with local government. Sadly, with the Labor government cutting the Stronger Communities Program funding and local roads and community infrastructure funding, I fear those days are behind us. I wish the clubs well as they take on their— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Early childhood is one of the most critical stages in human development. Its importance can't be overstated. Every single day, just down the road from my electorate office, at the Hillbank Community Children's Centre, and at thousands of other early learning centres across Australia, our children thrive in their early development, building block by building block. This crucial work is carried out by the tireless early childhood educators on the ground, fulfilling important and demanding roles for the good of our nation, our communities and our children.</para>
<para>Now these workers are getting a deserved pay rise, a 15 per cent wage increase under this Labor government. That's at least an extra $155 per week going directly into the pockets of educators on the award rate by December next year. That's funding to boost staff retention at our early childhood learning centres, ensuring early childhood educators in Australia can sustainably continue to help our children thrive. It's putting downward pressure on costs for families, by capping fee increases at 4.4 per cent as part of the wage increase, because this Labor government knows the pressure both early childhood educators and families are under. It knows how important early learning is to our nation, and that's why this Labor government is increasing pay without increasing cost where it matters most. To the centre manager at the Hillbank Community Children's Centre: I really do hope that this helps to increase retention of staff, because I know it's been an ongoing issue in our area.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Military College, Duntroon</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is good news from me today. Yesterday I had the privilege and honour of attending the Royal Military College, Duntroon for their graduation ceremony for 212 young Australians who have chosen the profession of arms, and the profession of leadership within that, and have become officers in the Australian Army. It was an emotional day for me as I looked at the faces of those young Australians and saw the pride in their eyes. As we listen to the media, we hear all sorts of rubbish, but yesterday I learnt of words like 'courage', 'initiative', 'teamwork', 'respect', 'honour' and 'excellence', and I saw those things in the eyes of those young folk who were graduating. I saw them in every step.</para>
<para>I sat next to the Chief of Army, and, when he asked me what was important to me as a parliamentarian, I looked at him and said, 'Chief, those 212 young Australians, those young leaders out there, are what's important to me, to my colleagues and to those parents who are so proud of their young ones, and that is what is so meaningful for the rest of the nation.' The nation is extremely proud of each and every one of them. I wish each and every one of those 212 graduates at the Royal Military College godspeed. Bravo Zulu, out.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Upon the close of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, I, together with the entire nation, celebrate the efforts of all Olympians, but particularly three from my electorate of Hasluck.</para>
<para>Duop Reath of Ellenbrook represented Australia in the men's basketball. He is a powerful centre for the Boomers and made his Australian debut in 2020, when the team received the bronze. Duop was born in South Sudan and moved to Australia when he was just nine. The Boomers return home having got to the quarter finals, where they went down to the wire with Serbia. I've got to say it was probably the most exciting—I will call it the most exciting—game of basketball I've ever had the joy to watch. I congratulate Duop and his teammates.</para>
<para>Giorgia Patten of Gooseberry Hill represented us in the women's eight rowing, as she did previously in 2020. The team finished just out of the medals with a worthy fourth, a mere second behind Great Britain. What's extraordinary is that Giorgia only started rowing in high school, where she clearly showed a huge amount of talent. She was selected for the WA squad shortly thereafter, in 2017.</para>
<para>Alanah Yukich of Upper Swan debuted for Australia in the 400-metre hurdles, and not only that; on 5 August, Alanah ran a personal best in her event. We can ask no more of any athlete than that they should give it their all, and Alanah certainly did that.</para>
<para>The Australian team have given us so much pride at the Paris Olympic Games, and I recognise the years of hard work on the part not just of the athletes but of the formidable team around them. In the words of walker Jemima Montag, play on!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Roads</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Anyone travelling any section of Australia's 880,000 kilometres of road network would have noticed the deteriorating condition of roads right across our nation. It's perhaps not surprising given that, in the first two years of the Albanese Labor government, $27.9 billion worth of infrastructure projects have been either cancelled, cut or delayed, including vital road projects. Not only are motorists failing to receive much needed upgrades to intersections, bridges and highways but the road maintenance backlog is growing. In my home state of South Australia alone, the backlog sits at $3 billion.</para>
<para>Motorists pay significant sums to support the repair and maintenance of our road network. In fact, they're paying more than ever at a time they can least afford it. Over the 12 months to 30 June 2024, transport costs for the typical Australian household rose by 10.5 per cent. This includes, of course, government fuel excise, which now sits at 47.7 cents per litre, yet only 71 per cent of this revenue is forecast to be spent on land transport by 2026-27. Governments demand that motorists drive roadworthy cars. In return, governments should provide roads and ensure they are car worthy. The Albanese Labor government is not holding up its end of the bargain.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: Oaks Cypress Lakes Resort</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you're looking for somewhere to get away to, look no further than the Hunter Valley. We have it all: great food, great wine and golf. If you're looking for somewhere that has this trifecta, Oaks Cypress Lakes Resort is the place to go. Cypress lakes shows off the best of the Hunter Valley. It's in the heart of wine country, and it has world-class food and amazing restaurants like Cypress Lakes Bistro and Bar and the Oak and Vine Cypress Lakes. They have cozy, luxurious accommodation at the oaks resort, and, to top it off, they have an elite golf course.</para>
<para>Their golf course is so good that Clint Newton, the son of legendary Australian golfer Jack Newton, has decided that it will be the venue for this year's Jack Newton Celebrity Classic. This event is iconic. It brings together the biggest names all for a great cause. Even the late great Bob Hawke was a regular at this event. The course at cypress lakes is the perfect venue for this event. It will also bring together some of the best junior golfers from around the world when it hosts the Jack Newton International Junior Classic.</para>
<para>Now they've rightfully been recognised as the holiday paradise that they are, Deputy Speaker Claydon. I'm sure you know that too, being not being far from the area. They've been nominated for an award at the World Travel Awards. I reckon we have a clear winner here, and I look forward to getting out to cypress lakes again soon and having a hit. Cheers, guys. Congratulations and good luck.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government went to the last election promising a $275 reduction in household power bills, not one-off energy relief but, rather, $275 off household power bills every single year. Now, in the third year of this government, Australians are paying up to $1,000 more than what Labor had promised them. This is having very real human impacts. We know from Finder, a consumer sentiment tracker, that 49 per cent of Australians are going cold this winter because they are fearful of electricity bills going up further if they turn on their heater, which means half of Australians—whether they be seniors, whether they be people with disabilities, whether they be veterans or whether they be hardworking families—are going cold because this government has lost control of the energy system. They are now paying among the highest prices in the world for electricity. Every single week since this government came to power, an extra 600 families have gone on hardship arrangements with their energy retailer because the government have lost control. This is a direct consequence of their all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only energy approach.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians will soon be asked who is best placed to form government, and they'll start making comparisons between us and them. I thought I'd do a little comparison myself, so let's start with early childhood education. Labor believes in and supports our early childhood education sector. Early childhood education delivers for our children, for families and for our economy. To have a viable early childhood education sector, we need the workers to sustain it. That's why we've funded a 15 per cent pay rise. These are pretty reasonable, sane policy positions.</para>
<para>Now, let's look at what the Liberals think. There's this guy called Gerard Rennick. He's a senator, believe it or not. He said that early education 'destroys the family unit' and that it 'brainwashes children with the woke mind virus'. Come on. The family unit in 2024 is not the family unit from 1924. For women to work, we need an early education sector that is affordable. For our economy to grow, we need an early education sector that is accessible. Labor will do these things and more.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in order to hold a visa, individuals must pass a character test. Does supporting a listed terrorist organisation like Hamas pass Australia's character test?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I notice the Leader of the Opposition, at a time when we were celebrating Olympians coming back to Australia, a moment of national unity, chose once again to seek division this morning in an interview on Sky News. Under the former government, there was this organisation called the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that, of course, did not stop Australia from accepting people from Afghanistan—and rightly so. Similarly in Iraq, similarly in Syria with the chaos that occurred—a special visa was created for people from Syria, indeed. And the ASIO director-general, Mike Burgess, of course, made some comments about this on Sunday. He did also—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Prime Minister was in the middle of a statement from the ASIO director regarding the question, but I will listen to the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was very tight. It was, 'Does supporting a listed terrorist organisation like Hamas pass Australia's character test?'</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left, there was an unparliamentary remark made while the leader was on his feet. Can I just say: when members are on their feet raising a point of order, it is highly disorderly, and I'm just going to ask from some restraint by all members. I heard a comment. I didn't hear what the word was, but I don't want to repeat it. If the Attorney-General has made an unparliamentary remark, I'm going to ask the Attorney-General to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dreyfus</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker should also withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the House. This is to allow the Leader of the Opposition, as he's entitled to do under the standing orders, to raise a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on relevance. This was an uncomplicated proposition. We just ask for a straight answer from the Prime Minister. Does supporting a listed terrorist organisation like Hamas pass Australia's character test? Yes or no?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to deal with this. Under the standing orders, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, I am not able to direct any minister, including the Prime Minister, with a 'yes or no' answer or with a fact or a figure, which I can appreciate members opposite would like from time to time. The Prime Minister was, as I said, reading a quote regarding this issue. If he was talking about another quote or another topic—but, given that he is in the middle of a quote, he couldn't be more directly relevant to the question. The Leader of the Opposition has raised his point of order. I've shown him respect. I'm asking him to show the chair respect as well. I give the call to the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will make two comments, one of which relates directly to security assessments. They are done by the ASIO director-general. If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have confidence in that system, he should say so. It's exactly the same system that was in place when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection who presided over these issues.</para>
<para>And I want to make another point relating to this and the comments the ASIO Director-General made on Monday 5 August. He said this about social cohesion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is really a matter for everyone—community leaders, politicians, the media—watch your words, watch your actions. … there is a direct correlation between inflamed language, inflamed tension, and violence …</para></quote>
<para>I seek to bring people together. This bloke—this weak bloke over here—can't ever say no to anyone on his own team, can't ever say no to attempting to raise tension in our community, and is always looking for an opportunity to create division. That is what his off-the-cuff comments were about today—comments that didn't go to their shadow cabinet, didn't go to their caucus, didn't go through any of their proper processes, yet again.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. What impact will the Future Made in Australia legislation have on Australian industry, workers and communities? And what stands in its way?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. At the heart of our Future Made in Australia legislation is a clear vision, a pretty simple proposition: we want Australia to make more things here. We want to be more resilient as an economy and we want more jobs to be created here. We can make things here. We can add value here. We can do more than dig things up out of the ground, export them, wait for value to be added, wait for jobs to be created and then import them back. We can build an economy where manufacturing is every bit as strong as mining, where Australian researchers and innovators can commercialise their ideas and turn discovery into industry.</para>
<para>Our plan reflects our confidence in Australian workers, our respect for Australian scientists and innovators, our belief in the boundless potential of our regions and our resources, and our determination to work with business and industry to make the most of this moment in this critical decade. Above all, our plan speaks for our unwavering determination to shape the future rather than have the future shape us.</para>
<para>Those opposite oppose a future made in Australia. They've called Australian manufacturing a 'graveyard', and the Leader of the Opposition even made the extraordinary statement, 'Everyone loves the thought of Australian made but they're not going to compete with China.' Well, I tell you what, Mr Speaker: I back Australia. I back Australian workers. I back Australian business. I back Australian innovation. I back the capacity of Australia to not just compete with the world but to win, whether it be miners in the Pilbara or the workers in Gladstone, or the Illawarra or the Hunter Valley, we can win. And that is what we want to do. We want to take Australia up the value chain; they want to talk Australia down.</para>
<para>We have the best solar resources in the world. We have enormous space in this country of ours. We have the critical minerals—everything under the ground that will drive the global economy in this century. We have the skilled workers. We have the great universities and TAFEs. Also, of course, we have our own people, with the diaspora that has connections with the entire world. The only thing our nation does not have is time to waste, which is why we are getting on with the job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, has any agency expressed any concern about any individual who has arrived from the Gaza war zone since 7 October? And has any such individual had their visa cancelled?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're only the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Leader of the Opposition, it is highly disorderly to—</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>He shouldn't get up early—it makes him grumpier than unusual!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister has the call. He's going to refer to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're a sook!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I ask that that be withdrawn?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To assist the House, I'm going to invite the member for New England to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for New England.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The House will come to order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence; the Prime Minister is going to be given the same courtesy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's one of their best on their front bench, one of their best. That question in the entire time since Federation is perhaps the most broad—'Has anyone, anywhere at any time done something to somebody?' We have exactly the same process with indeed the same director-general of the security organisation, just reappointed for five years, that they had in charge with the same rules in place, as the director-general of ASIO confirmed on Sunday and confirmed last week. The director-general of ASIO has certainly not expressed concerns to me along any of the lines which were raised by the shadow minister.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How will the disciplined and rigorous approach to investments as part of the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia plan ensure the benefits are widely shared? What approaches were rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will miss the member for Calwell when she retires at the end of this parliamentary term, and this question shows why. A Future Made in Australia is all about modernising and strengthening our economy in a global economy powered by cleaner and cheaper energy. It's about grasping the vast economic and industrial opportunities presented to us by the world's shift to net zero. The legislation before the House, as the Prime Minister said, provides the rigor and robustness we need to attract more investment in the most cost-effective way. That's why the Ai Group said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This rigour brings a welcome degree of transparency and accountability … based on clear policy principles …</para></quote>
<para>This is what the coalition are opposing when they say they will vote against our legislation. They are voting against a proper assessment of spending. They are voting against communities benefiting from this investment. They are voting against aligning our economic and national security interests. The shadow Treasurer's bizarre and unhinged speech last night reads like it was cut and pasted from the darkest, strangest corners of the far-right web, and that's because it probably was. He bagged the Treasury department that he wants to lead. He said that prioritising local communities, jobs and skills is 'Orwellian'. He said putting national security and economics together is 'ideological', and he described ARENA as a 'slush fund'. Remember, he was the minister for ARENA for almost four years. It was truly mad and bizarre stuff. It was truly unhinged, and it was factually wrong, as well. For example, he said that the PsiQuantum deal cost the Commonwealth $22.7 billion, when it's only $470 million. He was only $22,230,000,000 off! Then he handed his dodgy maths to the member for Flynn, who repeated his points verbatim and stuffed it up as well. He shouldn't have taken the shadow Treasurer seriously when nobody else does.</para>
<para>This is a contest between the maddies over there and the mainstream over here. We are part of a new global orthodoxy, mainstream and middle of the road, which is all about sharing the views of the investment community here and abroad. We know that it would be self-defeating to let the global net zero opportunity pass us by. It would make our economy weaker, our people poorer and our country more valuable. We know we can be big beneficiaries—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Groom will cease interjecting or he will be warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>of the global shift to net zero if we play our winning hand and if we reject the extreme and divisive and gaffe-prone and unhinged cooker politics being played by those opposite, which sees them in the third year of a three-year parliamentary term still without any credible or costed economic policies of their own.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United States of America: Delegation of Congress, Timor-Leste: Parliamentary Delegation, Regional Development Australia</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Fowler, I'd like to recognise some guests in the gallery. I inform the House that present in the special visitors gallery today is a delegation of US congressional representatives led by Representative Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I'm honoured to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation from Timor-Leste. They are led by member of the national parliament Deputada Sancha Margarida Tilman and joined by Her Excellency Ines Maria de Almeida, the Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. Also present in the gallery are members of Regional Development Australia, including the deputy mayor of one of my local councils, Councillor Nicole Jonic from Ipswich. Welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. A local business in Fowler has seen its energy bill go from $4,000 to $11,000 per quarter. Affordable energy prices are critical to fight cost-of-living pressures and for the survival and competitiveness of many businesses. What is your government doing to fundamentally change the systems by which electricity is currently charged across Australia to create certainty and access to lower cost mechanisms for consumers and businesses?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We thank the member for Fowler for the question. Together with the member for Blaxland and the member for Werriwa, the member for Fowler and I represent a wonderful part of the world in south-western Sydney. In south-western Sydney, people know that people right around Australia are doing it tough, that small businesses are doing it tough and that they have a government which is providing relief today because today is when it is necessary.</para>
<para>The honourable member asked about small business and, to be fair, about consumers and residences. This government is providing relief to both of those groups. In relation to small business, we're providing direct relief. We have also provided tax support to assist small businesses in making the transition to more efficient energy uses—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wow!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition scoffs and says, 'Wow.' Well, it is good to provide support to small businesses for the energy transition. We on this side of the House think that. The opposition doesn't agree. The opposition does not agree with providing that support to small business. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition scoffs at that and dismisses it.</para>
<para>We're delivering $62 million in small business grants to improve energy efficiency to small businesses. In relation to residences, state and territory ministers agreed with me a couple of weeks ago to adopt a consumer energy roadmap, which I think the honourable member was referring to, which puts residences and consumers in charge of their own energy use. It gives them more opportunities to control the renewable energy in their house and in their driveway to make sure that they are getting the benefits as well as the immediate relief that has been provided in the budget of $300 for every person who receives an energy bill across our country and for small businesses. That is support in the medium term to let businesses and consumers make the choices which put them in charge to reduce their bills and emissions at the same time.</para>
<para>That is the real, concrete plan the Albanese government has put into place now that is providing relief now. It's not a fantasy plan in decades time to introduce the most expensive form of energy known around the world, a plan which might work in decades to actually introduce new energy, but that will be expensive energy. These are real plans today providing relief to Australians who need that support today.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manufacturing Industry</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Why is it imperative that we deliver a future made in Australia, and what stands in the way of that delivery?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for their question because they know, like everyone on this side of the House knows, how critically important our Future Made in Australia plans are, rebuilding manufacturing capability in this country. We lived the experience of the pandemic. The things we needed most weren't there when we needed them. We needed to rebuild our ability to make things in this country. We recognise the vulnerabilities of depending on concentrated supply chains that didn't deliver for us. Being able to rebuild manufacturing capabilities to help us respond to global and national challenges, like the transition to net zero, can also, importantly, create great jobs. Strong economies possess strong manufacturing capabilities, and they create strong, secure, well-paid jobs, which is really important to the nation. We want to use our Future Made in Australia plans to revitalise manufacturing, grow jobs and make the transition to net zero easier for the nation. But what are we confronted with? We're confronted with, again, an unholy alliance—the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens—all saying they'll vote against it.</para>
<para>I note the presence of Hansard—hello, I'm a big fan. I have to say that I was going to call Hansard today because some of the debate that we saw from those opposite last night was something else. The shadow Treasurer didn't fail to deliver. Bear in mind that this is the same Liberal Party that, in government, saw off 100,000 manufacturing jobs and saw off the car industry. In opposition they also voted against the National Reconstruction Fund, and they also voted against energy price relief to help our manufacturers. And then you had the shadow Treasurer say that the coalition has always supported manufacturing, followed by another clanger, where the shadow Treasurer said that he'd worked for decades in manufacturing—for that noted manufacturer, McKinsey & Company. Thinking of Angus as a manufacturing worker is like thinking of Derek Zoolander as a coalminer. It just doesn't fit.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The shadow Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Assistant Treasurer will cease interjecting. The member for Wannon has every right to raise a point of order, and he will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the minister to refer to members by their correct title, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is an entirely appropriate point of order. Is the member for Menzies seeking the call?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wolahan</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I invite the minister to remind himself of the standing order that all members should be aware of.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It just doesn't work. Their commitment—their heart—is not in it. They only ever talk about manufacturing to talk it down. This is a test for the parliament. Do we want a stronger economy or a weaker one? Do we want more jobs or fewer? Will the Liberals and Nationals join up again with the Greens to refuse to back our plans for A Future Made in Australia? People will see where that mob stands.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Visa Refusal or Cancellation</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no individual who participated in or supported the 7 October Hamas terror attacks—the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust—has been granted a visa by his government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to previous answers. We have exactly the same security arrangements that were in place when you were in government, when the leader of the Liberal Party was the minister for immigration. I have confidence in the work that our security agencies do. They work their guts out to keep us safe. If you do not have confidence, you should have objected when we reappointed the leadership of our security agency recently.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bowman is now on a warning. Following on from Monday, there will be consequences for actions.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering lower energy bills and A Future Made in Australia, by investing in renewable energy? What has been the response to these policies and what energy policies has the government ruled out?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the question from the member for Higgins. The member for Higgins knows that renewable energy is one of this countries great economic opportunities, as we on this side of the House do. When we see renewable energy we don't run away from it, we're not scared of it, we embrace it as an economic opportunity for our regions in particular. When we see renewable energy we see an opportunity for young people in the regions of Australia—whether it's the Hunter Valley or Central Queensland or Collie in Western Australia—to study and to participate in that revolution and to stay where they grow up if they want to and take those great of the future. That's what we see in this country. Renewable energy means cheaper bills and more jobs for our country.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill is all about seizing that opportunity for our nation, and we see that opportunity. We've heard that the opposition is opposed to it and we heard from the shadow Treasurer last night. In rejecting the Future Made in Australia plan the shadow Treasurer pointed to the community benefit principles in the bills, calling them 'Orwellian'. I had a look. I thought that we've got to be fair and we've got to check. He's onto us here. There's some terrible stuff here. 'Promote safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions.' That's socialism writ large there. 'Develop more skilled and inclusive workforces, including by investing in training and skills development, and broadening opportunities for workforce participation.' We're on the verge of something terrible here. This is really high stakes. 'Engage collaboratively with and achieve outcomes for local communities.' No wonder they're against it. They're opposed to it strengthening 'domestic industrial capabilities including through stronger local supply chains'. That is, a sovereign capability for our country. I mean, this is verging on dictatorship. This is really, really dangerous material. Thank goodness we've got the member for Hume standing there against it.</para>
<para>To be fair to the opposition—as we always try to be—they're dead against it in Canberra but less so in Perth. They're not so opposed to it in Perth. The Leader of the Opposition went to Western Australia last week. To his credit, it's good to be there. It was one of his longer visits to Western Australia, more than a few hours. No billionaire birthdays were attended, to the best of our knowledge. I tell you where else he didn't attend—Collie, which is where the opposition want a nuclear power station. He couldn't find his way to Collie. He was asked on radio, 'Have you been to Collie?' and he said, 'I haven't been up to Collie yet.' Collie is south of Perth, so you go down to Collie. A bit of a 'Yeppen' moment for the Leader of the Opposition while he was in Western Australia. I'm not quite sure where he wants to put the nuclear reactors. He couldn't be bother going there. The Leader of the Opposition has never been to Collie in his life and he wants to put a nuclear reactor there.</para>
<para>During the break I went to Port Augusta, Central Queensland and Lithgow, where the opposition is proposing nuclear power plants. Those communities want jobs and investment today, not in the 2040s. That's what we'll provide. That's what the Leader of the Opposition is not capable of providing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Visas</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the Albanese Labor government's proposed visa arrangements for individuals from the Gaza war zone, will applicants be eligible for a permanent or a temporary visa?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure how that fits in with the housing portfolio. I saw the Manager of Opposition Business this morning speaking about how we needed less questions from the crossbench and more questions from the shadow ministry because they stuck to their portfolio. I saw that this morning, but that didn't last a matter of hours.</para>
<para>The arrangements that we have in place are the same that were in place under the former government. The role of ASIO, the use of the movement alert list, the processes we use to vet visa applicants are all unchanged.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education, Literacy and Numeracy</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Education. What is the government's response to today's NAPLAN results and what is the government doing to build a better and fairer education system? What approaches to education has the government rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my friend the legendary member for Tangney for the question. We've got a good education system, but the truth is it could be a lot better and a lot fairer. The NAPLAN results out today are proof of this. What they show is the need for real reform. What they show is that about one in 10 children who sat the test are below the minimum standard that we set for literacy and numeracy. That's across the board.</para>
<para>What it also shows is it's one in three children from poor families, it's one in three children from the bush and it's one in three Indigenous children. What the results don't show but what I want to inform the House is that only 20 per cent of those children who fall behind when they're little catch up by the time they're in year 9, in the middle of high school. As a result, over the last seven years we've seen a drop in the number of children now finishing high school from 85 per cent down to 79 per cent. That's what we've got to fix. That's what we've got to turn around.</para>
<para>That's what the better and fairer schools agreement that I released a couple of weeks ago was all about. I table it for the House and for members. It includes practical reforms like phonics checks and numeracy checks in year 1 to identify, early on, kids who are falling behind. It includes things like evidence based teaching and catch-up tutoring to help those kids who fall behind. I've put an extra $16 billion on the table for our public schools, but it's not a blank cheque; it's tied to these sorts of practical reforms. The Northern Territory has signed up, Western Australia has signed up, and I want to do the same across the country.</para>
<para>Fixing this doesn't start at the school gate. It starts before that. This isn't just about children who fall behind at primary school; it's about kids who start behind when they start school in kindy or in prep. The fact is it's children from poor families who are the least likely to go to early education and care and the most likely to benefit from it. If we want to fix this, if we want to build a truly universal early education and care system, then first we've got to build up the workforce that will ensure this. That's what the 15 per cent pay rise that we announced for early educators is all about, which was opposed by the Liberal Party and opposed by that guy in the Senate—what's his name again?</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Gerard Rennick, who said that paying early educators more was going to destroy the family unit. This is the bloke that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed and said was a great defender of Liberal values. If they're Liberal values, then God help us.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East: Migration</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Has the minister been lobbied by anyone in his electorate for a visa for an individual from the Gaza war zone since 7 October?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order: this is a question asked of the member for Watson, not of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, it's pretty clear that the member for Watson is also the minister for immigration, so this is entirely within his ministerial responsibilities.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, in his capacity as minister. Members can't ask a question about a minister's electorate or their capacity as a member. He might have been asked about another member or another electorate as well. I'm going to ask the member for Mallee to rephrase that to make sure that it is within the minister's responsibility, not his capacity as a member.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Has the minister been lobbied by anyone in his electorate or any other electorate for a visa for an individual from the Gaza war zone since 7 October?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House has the call.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately. The minister for the environment will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will explain how arrangements work within the portfolio. I haven't been in the habit of sharing individual representations that members make to ministers—but if we go down that path, we go down that path—but every member here makes representations. When I take on this portfolio and representations are made, I will have a similar arrangement to that which I had when I last took on the portfolio in 2013, which is that, for anything with respect to my electorate, I will have to make representation either to a different minister or to the secretary of my department. The responsible minister who deals with all ministerial interventions of that form, which I would make in behalf of my electorate, is the assistant minister. For anything in his electorate, he would write to me.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Lyons will cease interjecting. When the House comes to order, we'll hear from the member for Wills.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to alleviate the cost-of-living pressures for the critical early childhood workforce, and what has been the response?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wills for the question. He is someone who brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to this House and who, like all of us on this side of the House, understands the transformative benefits of early childhood education for children and families.</para>
<para>We've already made early childhood education and care more affordable, decreasing the out-of-pocket fees by around 11 per cent. That's good for families. It's real cost-of-living relief for families. Now we're delivering an historic 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood workers. This means that, by the end of this year, early childhood workers—around 200,000 of them—will get a pay rise of at least $100. By the end of next year, that'll be over $150. This isn't just about giving them the fair and decent wage that they deserve and it's not just about recognising their professionalism, their qualifications and the quality of care and education that they provide; it's also about ensuring that we don't lose those dedicated professionals and about undertaking the ambitious task that we've set for ourselves—the ambitious task of achieving our vision of a universal early learning system that is affordable, accessible and inclusive.</para>
<para>This $3.6 billion dollar investment towards a wage increase will make a real difference. It will help ease the cost-of-living pressures for early childhood workers. But you don't have to take it from me. You don't have to listen to me on that; you can actually listen to what educators have said about this. Bec, who's an educator in South Australia, says that she will be able to buy actual, proper groceries and not live off sausages and bread. That's what this means to her. Gemma, who's an educator from Victoria, said, 'This increase will enable me to live comfortably and not stress financially pay cheque to pay cheque.'</para>
<para>That's what our educators are saying about this increase. That stands in stark contrast to what those opposite are saying about it. Those opposite want to make this all about outdated ideas of what modern Australia is. They want to talk about 'the Australian way of life'. I don't even know what they mean when they reference 'the Australian way of life', as if paying workers a decent wage is somehow un-Australian. They want to continue to undermine and ignore the important contribution that our early childhood workers make to child development, to Australian families and, importantly, to the economy. What they don't want to do is listen to the workers. What they don't want to do is talk about real cost-of-living relief for the important workers in this sector. Instead, they want to focus on ideology. We want to focus on cost-of-living relief. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fossil Fuel Industry</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Scott Reef, off the Kimberley coast, is one of the last untouched jewels in our oceans. It is home to 54 threatened species, including endangered pygmy blue whales and green turtles, which will be at serious risk if you give Woodside a permit to pump gas from under the reef. Will you use your power to prevent the Browse project proceeding in this term of parliament, or was your commitment to no new extinctions just a feel-good media release?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. As I've said in this place before, I can't give commentary on individual projects that may come before me as the minister. The assessment of this project is currently paused while the Western Australian EPA and Woodside provide more information.</para>
<para>But I would say to her that, if she is genuinely interested in the transition that this country needs to make to a future that has more renewable energy, she should be backing this side, she should be backing the measures that we're taking on the transition to renewable energy and she should be backing our environmental law reform, which is the best way to secure a future for the threatened species that she is claiming to be concerned about. Those threatened species would benefit from an environment protection agency with stronger powers and penalties, including the ability to issue stop-work orders and the ability to audit proponents.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So much enthusiasm!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The former environment minister, who did nothing during her term, loves to interject. Wouldn't it be great if only she'd ever had the chance to do a single thing? To be fair, she hid a report.</para>
<para>I want to say to the Greens political party: you have the opportunity to vote in the Senate for stronger powers for an EPA and for stronger penalties—changing maximum penalties for wrongdoing in the environment from under $15 million to $780 million. Is that the sort of thing you'd expect the Greens to support? Yes, it kind of is. They have the opportunity to vote for millions of dollars of extra investment to protect threatened species through the establishment of Environment Information Australia. Apparently, they're not interested in that either. The Greens political party have a chance to vote for stronger protections for nature. They should take it.</para>
<para>Incidentally, those sitting opposite also have the opportunity to see better, faster decisions made for business. We are investing around $100 million to speed up approvals. Environmental approvals under this government are on time at a rate twice as high as under the previous government. We've already made significant improvements since the former minister was in charge. We'd like to see further improvements as well, along with better environmental protections. If those up there in the Greens political party really want stronger protections for nature, they should tell their friends in the Senate to vote for stronger protections for nature.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. After a decade of cuts and neglect, how are the Albanese Labor government's Medicare urgent care clinics making it easier for Australians to see a doctor, and are there any threats that would make it harder for Australians to see a doctor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Cunningham. She is a regular correspondent indeed about better health care in the Illawarra, and I'm sure that, like me, she read yesterday in the <inline font-style="italic">Illawarra Mercury</inline> a piece by Kate McIlwain entitled 'My daughter was sicker than she's ever been—but we didn't end up at Wollongong ED'. Kate's five-year-old daughter had become violently ill on a Sunday and was at serious risk of dehydration. Kate wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I knew if we didn't get help soon, we'd end up at Wollongong emergency department with dozens of other people unable to get medical help … on a Sunday night.</para></quote>
<para>But, after a call with Healthdirect, Kate was referred to the Medicare urgent care clinic at Corrimal. The sign at the opening of the clinic said that the wait time right then at the Wollongong ED was 5½ hours, but within 20 minutes she saw two nurses, and within another 20 minutes her daughter was seen by a doctor who prescribed medicine and put her daughter on IV fluids. Happily, her daughter got much better. Kate wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">But finally I feel like there are good options for getting fast, high quality medical treatment—even when your kids get sick at the most awkward times.</para></quote>
<para>Kate's daughter is one of 660,000 patients who have already been seen at our urgent care clinics since last July. Like Kate's daughter, one in three of them have been kids under the age of 15—kids who need urgent attention and urgent care but don't need to go to a hospital. These clinics are operating seven days a week for extended hours and, importantly, every single patient seen in these clinics is fully bulk-billed, fully free of charge. Along with more bulk-billing generally for GP visits and cheaper medicines, these urgent care clinics are a really important part of our comprehensive plan to strengthen Medicare, to make it easier to see a doctor and help with the rising costs of health care in our country.</para>
<para>These measures are making a real difference to Kate's daughter and to millions of Australians, but we know it is still tough out there. We know that we need to keep doing more and we're determined to keep doing more in health. But we also know that all of this is under threat from those opposite. The shadow minister for health, of all people, has said that she doesn't support urgent care clinics. The shadow Treasurer only this week confirmed in this chamber again that they will cut the funding, they will close the clinics and they will force people like Kate and her daughter back into the emergency departments. As for the Leader of the Opposition, we just have to look at his record. As Minister for Health, he tried to cut $50 billion out of our public hospitals and impose a GP tax on every single Australian. No wonder this man was voted the worst health minister in the history of Medicare by Australia's doctors.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Minister, of all the visas that have been approved for applicants from the Gaza war zone since October 7, have any been granted without an ASIO security assessment being made?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a process which ASIO is involved with which applies to every single visa issued by Australia, whether you come from the United States or whether you come from the Gaza Strip. That is through what ASIO will routinely refer to as their 'watchlist'—what is technically referred to as the Movement Alert List. It is updated every 24 hours with every name that ASIO puts forward that they are concerned about. Every single visa that has been issued by this government and by the previous government went through that check against ASIO's information.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australians to get the skills they need to support a future made in Australia while easing the cost-of-living pressures? What approaches to skills has the government rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Werriwa for her question and her keen interest in vocational education—an interest shared by her constituents, several thousand of whom attended one of the three local TAFE campuses in Werriwa. Thanks to the great work of the member for Gorton, we are rebuilding the skills and training system—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Aren't you meant to be at the Press Club?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>that gives every Australian the opportunity to get ahead. I'm pleased to inform the House that more than 500,000 Australians have now enrolled in fee-free TAFE. That is half a million people learning in-demand skills to work in the care sector, in cybersecurity, in construction and in so many other fields in which we need those skills, easing cost-of-living pressures while helping businesses across Australia get the skilled workers they need.</para>
<para>On my third day as minister, I met Zoe, a young woman on her third day studying to become an early childhood educator at TAFE. Fee-free TAFE has given her the opportunity to study to do such an important job: caring for and educating our youngest children. And now, when she begins her career, she will get to earn more and keep more of what she earns thanks to the Albanese Labor government—the government which has backed a 15 per cent wage increase for our early childhood education and care workers. This pay rise, combined with fee-free TAFE courses, means that there has never been a better time to become an early childhood educator.</para>
<para>Working with the states and territories—a foreign concept to those opposite—the Albanese government is seeing more than 10,000 people enrol in fee-free TAFE courses for child care. Unfortunately, those opposite, like the member for Farrer, believe fee-free TAFE is wasteful spending. They are wrong. There is nothing wasteful about training childhood educators. There is nothing wasteful about delivering cost-of-living relief to those who need it the most. There is nothing wasteful about investing in Australia's future—in a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>The member for Farrer has not asked one question in question time about this portfolio in the two years that she has been the shadow minister. More than that, her leader, the Leader of the Opposition, hasn't used the word 'TAFE' in this place since 2004—not since Facebook came into existence! It's as though they are allergic to seeing Australians getting cost-of-living relief and the skills they need while earning higher wages. But as we approach National Skills Week, the Albanese government is getting on with the job, investing in our workforce of the future to tackle the things that matter: getting to net zero, a Future Made in Australia, building homes, and of course making child care work for our families and for early childhood educators, who work for our children's future.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A sizzling contribution from someone who couldn't even front the Press Club!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the deputy leader knows where this is heading. She's interjected about 17 times, and I specifically requested that she not interject during that answer. She'll now leave the chamber under 94(a). There are consequences for actions.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Farrer then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. My community of North Sydney cares deeply for regional and rural Australia—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>recognising that many in these communities are already survivors of some of the most significant severe climate events seen in the past decade.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will resume her seat for a moment. I want to hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a habit from those opposite, when particular members of the crossbench rise to ask a question, of levels of abuse that do not go to other members. It's consistent, and it just happened again before our eyes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to hear from the member for Warringah.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Steggall</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to raise, with concern, behaviour in terms of standing orders 90 and 91, in particular in respect to the member for Maranoa, who was very loud and who, as a leader of a party, should show leadership to his members in how he conducts himself in the parliament.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As Speaker, I believe that members should be heard in absolute silence when they're asking a question, for the supremacy of respect for the member as well as the importance of the information they're providing the House. I've been more than tolerant and fair with this process. But I'm asking all members in all parts of the chamber to respect one another when they're on their feet asking a question. You may not like what the content is, but every member is entitled to that supremacy. And there is a distinct audible noise when members of the crossbench or the non-major parties ask their questions. So I'm just asking members to show respect, and in that vein I'm going to ask the member for North Sydney to begin her question again so that she can be heard in silence, just as the Leader of the Opposition was and as a member of the government would be heard.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. My community of North Sydney cares deeply about regional and rural Australia, recognising that many in these communities are already survivors of some of the worst significant severe climate events seen in the past decade. As the minister responsible for these communities and local government, do you support the inclusion of a climate trigger as part of the approval process for future developments? Or, otherwise, what measures or protections are you arguing for to ensure that these communities are spared the impacts of worsening climate events?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, asking one minister their view about another minister's portfolio is not in order, although the question could be redirected to the appropriate minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I'm just going to ask the member to rephrase the question to make sure—as the leader has said, redirecting and asking. Otherwise, another minister may have to answer the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I continue to direct my question to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. My community of North Sydney cares deeply about the development potential for regional and rural Australia. Arguably, one of the biggest challenges that regional and rural Australia is currently facing is climate change. I would like to understand: does the minister responsible for regional development have an opinion on whether a climate trigger should be included as part of the approval process for future developments, or what other measures is the minister prepared to argue for to protect regional and rural communities?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The standing orders are very clear: you simply can't ask a minister an opinion. It's not under the standing orders, so we're moving to the next question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Industry</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery. What steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to accelerate defence capability and ensure a future made in Australia after a wasted decade?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Makin from the mighty defence state of South Australia for that question. We face the greatest strategic uncertainty since 1945. The first duty of any Commonwealth government is to protect Australians and keep our country safe. In this, a consistent approach is essential with a unity of purpose. Leadership is critical. But, sadly, under the last government goldfish lasted longer than defence ministers. That has now changed. I'm delighted to inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister has now served as defence minister longer than six of the seven defence ministers in the last government—six of seven! And I've now served longer than six of the seven defence industry ministers in that wasted decade. That stability and unity is delivering results, leading to accelerated capability.</para>
<para>But it starts with a budget, and this government has increased the defence budget by $50 billion over the decade and $5.7 billion over the forward estimates—something those opposite are refusing to match. In fact, they're arguing for a cut to the defence budget. We've increased the Integrated Investment Program by $60 billion, and these increased resources and stable, consistent leadership are driving a very significant speeding-up of capability compared to the approach of the last government in their wasted decade. Under them, there was to be one new frigate in 2034; under us, there are to be four by 2034, the first in 2030. Under them, the first infantry fighting vehicle was to be in 2029; under us, it will be in 2027 and made in Australia. Under them, the first heavy landing craft was to be in 2035; under us, it will be in 2028 and made in Western Australia. Under them, manufacturing missiles was to start in 2035; under us, it starts next year. Under them, contracts for armed drones were cancelled; under us, the first armed drone arrives this year.</para>
<para>This focus on speed to capability will not only result in advanced equipment for the Australian Defence Force; it will create more high-skilled, well-paid jobs in the Australian defence industry. Through stable leadership and unity of purpose, we are bringing capability forward while supporting a defence future made in Australia. That is what a mature, adult government does, rather than the last one, which was addicted to all spin and no delivery—a former government whose defence minister, the now Leader of the Opposition, couldn't even deliver ships with safe drinking water for our sailors.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for immigration. Minister, have any visas for individuals coming from the Gaza war zone been granted without an in-person interview?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When visas are issued within a war zone and people apply for visitor visas, the in-person interview is a different circumstance, but the security checks don't change, and that's what matters. What matters is that there will be no compromise on national security—none. I've seen what Senator Paterson has said, and I've seen what Mike Burgess has said. And if it's a choice between taking national security advice from a junior coalition shadow minister or the director-general of our national security organisation, I'll back our security organisation any day.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moreton is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Australia</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government, and Territories. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to support regional Australia, including through the creation of a homegrown, low-carbon liquid fuel industry, and what approaches has the government rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Hunter for that question. Not only is he a towering advocate for his community—he's also pretty tall—but he knows that a future made in Australia will be good for all regional Australia, particularly in the Hunter. Labor's plan for a future made in Australia is simple. We want Australia to be a country that makes more things here because making more things here will help our economy grow. It will help to create good jobs in rural and regional Australia. You should not have to pack your bags to build a career.</para>
<para>Under our Future Made in Australia plan, one of our priority initiatives is the development of the Australian low-carbon liquid fuel industry. It will fast track support for sustainable fuel with an initial focus on aviation fuel and renewable diesel, which will support emissions reduction in transport, mining, manufacturing and agriculture. Currently, 60 per cent of Australia's canola exports go to Europe to be used to produce biofuels—400 kilotons of our tallow. We can do that here, and the industry agrees with us. GrainCorp said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… federal budget funding for low carbon fuels initiatives playing into its strategy to become a major player in the renewable fuels supply chain.</para></quote>
<para>In their Future Made in Australia submission, the NFF said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The NFF has long supported the development of the Australian bioenergy and Low Carbon Liquid Fuels (LCLF) industries, with Australian agriculture playing an important role in the supply chain …</para></quote>
<para>Just last week, when I was in the member for Riverina's electorate, a beautiful part of the world, I spoke to locals in Wagga who said this exact thing—that they want to take advantage of this initiative to benefit their local economy. They know—just like we do—that regional communities stand to benefit from a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>We're already seeing tangible outcomes, such as the MOU between Ampol, GrainCorp and IFM, to explore establishing Australia's own integrated renewable fuels industry, including the supply of local, homegrown feedstocks. But the Nationals can't yet convince the Liberals to stop saying no to everything. The Liberal Party dismissed the policy as billions for billionaires failing to understand the importance of working with the private sector to build new Australian industries and to create more jobs in our region.</para>
<para>Those opposite, led by the shadow Treasurer, who calls support for Australian industries a 'wasted effort' or 'billions for billionaires'. They just don't understand the importance of working with the industry. It's hardly surprising from a group that chased car manufacturers offshore and called Australian manufacturing a graveyard. That's not how you deliver for regional communities. On this side of the House, we have a government with a positive plan for Australia that supports Australian industries, supports Australian jobs and supports Australian training. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Visitor Visas</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Minister, since 7 October last year, has any individual from the Gaza war zone applied for a visa and been rejected on the basis of their affiliation with, or membership of, the listed terrorist organisation, Hamas?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The statistics on visas applied for and rejected are as follows. From 7 October to 12 August, which are the statistics I have available, 2,922 visas were granted; 7,111 were rejected.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Everyone will cease interjecting, on my left and my right. The member for Holt will resume her seat. When the House comes to order, the member for New England will get the call.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right! I wish to hear the member for New England on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, someone over there said the word 'sook', and they must withdraw it!</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I ask members to show some decorum. Member for Moreton, on a point of order—and it had better be a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian families meet cost-of-living pressures to access broadband services and improve educational outcomes for students?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. She understands it's vital that we give young people right around Australia the tools they need to succeed in our modern education environment, and that includes access to the highest-quality broadband. We know education doesn't end at the school gate, and the importance of remote learning was realised during the pandemic and the lockdown period.</para>
<para>Prior to the election, we discovered that there were some 30,000 families right around Australia with school students at home who, for whatever reason, didn't have access to the internet. That exposed a digital divide in children's learning. That's why, upon coming to government, we committed $8.8 million to the School Student Broadband Initiative, providing families in need with real cost-of-living relief through a free broadband service that will now run until the end of 2025.</para>
<para>I was pleased to recently join the Prime Minister at St John XXIII Catholic College in Stanhope Gardens, in my electorate, to hear from the teachers and students about how access to the internet was integral to their learning. As the Prime Minister said, access to the internet is as basic in 2024 as a pen and paper were a generation ago. We want to ensure that no Australian child is left behind in their learning due to cost-of-living pressures.</para>
<para>I am pleased to advise the House today that more than 16,000 families who were without broadband at home have now been connected to free internet through our initiative. For a family who gets connected today, they'll get a free internet service under the scheme until the end of next year, and that is saving them around a thousand dollars. That's real cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>Anglicare Victoria, which manages the National Referral Centre to help connections to the program, told us about a mother-of-three who had never had the internet at home but was finally able to get her family connected. The opportunity is especially significant for her youngest child, who has autism and attends school part time. Now her child can keep up with their studies using a specialised program that tracks and submits completed work while maintaining access to teachers.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is delivering on our election commitments, including this one, delivering real cost-of-living relief for families in need and helping to improve access and opportunities in education for all Australian children, wherever they may live. The initiative remains open for nominations until the end of the year, and any Australian family can contact the National Referral Centre on 1800954610 to check their eligibility and get assistance to set up their free connection and take up the benefits of this transformative scheme.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>66</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Questions In Writing</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 105(b) I wish to draw to your attention multiple overdue questions in writing: questions 634, 630, 625, 622, 616 and 575. Mr Speaker, I ask that you write to respective ministers and seek their explanations as to why they have chosen not to answer my questions in writing within 60 days.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I shall do so as the standing order provides.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>66</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>66</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kooyong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The need for the government to urgently address the chronic shortage of housing in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the 1980s the average house price was four times the average income. Today it is nine times the average income. After decades of policy failure and short-term thinking by governments on both sides it's harder for young Australians to buy a home now than it ever has been before. In one of the three least-populated countries in the world, we have the world's second most expensive housing.</para>
<para>This crisis is a direct result of the government's failure to plan and to act. Young people are being shut out of the market by rapidly rising house prices which have outpaced wages growth for more than a decade. The private rental market is also failing, with a persistent shortage of affordable homes. Those on low incomes and older single women are facing severe housing stress and, increasingly, homelessness.</para>
<para>The root of the problem is supply. Australia has one of the lowest numbers of homes per capita in the developed world. The federal government has set a target of 1.2 million new homes by 2030, but at our current pace we won't reach that goal. While we wait for those homes to be built, we must do more to help people who are struggling right now. As a matter of urgency, this government needs to increase support payments and Commonwealth rental assistance, ensuring that all vulnerable people receive the help that they need to be housed. The government must ensure that councils and state governments commit to the development of more social and affordable housing, and must work with them to ensure that this happens quickly, effectively and cost efficiently. Policemen, nurses, aged-care workers and childcare workers should be able to live somewhere close to where they work.</para>
<para>We could start this tomorrow by extending the national rental affordability scheme and by extending tax benefits to existing build-to-rent projects. We can look to innovative solutions like those proposed today by the Community Housing Institute of Australia, National Shelter and the Property Council of Australia. This would deliver 105,000 build-to-rent homes in less than 10 years with a less than $10 million commitment from this government. We could double the size of the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
<para>We also need to encourage investors not to leave homes empty in a housing crisis. Almost 98,000 homes in metropolitan Melbourne will be empty tonight. That is almost one in 20 homes. Those homes would house everyone on Victoria's social housing waitlist several times over. There's also land-banking by developers who secure planning approvals but don't act on them, and accumulate a buffer stock of approved sites. There are 120,000 sites approved and ready to be built immediately in Victoria, but either it's more profitable for those developers not to build on them yet or they can't find the construction staff.</para>
<para>In the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we agreed that adequate housing was part of the right to an adequate standard of living. In 2024 we realised that housing is a human right. It's the great Australian dream to own your own home, and we need to keep that dream alive. We also need to ensure that those people who can't buy a house can be sure of being housed throughout their lives. The government needs to do more to make this happen by incentivising investment in residential developments, addressing rising input costs and labour shortages, and encouraging states and councils to rezone and develop their land and to address land-banking and vacancies.</para>
<para>There are no immediate solutions to this problem, but there are many things that we could do today to improve housing affordability and availability. We can act now if we have vision, commitment and courage. In the middle of this unprecedented housing crisis, we must act now to ensure that every Australian has the chance to live in a safe, secure and affordable home. The future of our young people depends on it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the matter of public importance. I really genuinely thank the member for Kooyong for bringing this debate forward. I've been in my job for just a couple of days beyond two weeks now, and one of the things I would say is that the intense politicisation of what is going on in housing policy at the moment I don't think is actually helping us move towards the right solution for the country. There are people who are sitting today on the crossbench who are part of the solution, not part of the problem, such as the member for Kooyong and the member for Wentworth, who is also here. These are smart women who are deeply engaged in the policy detail and really thinking about the ways in which our government can work with states and territories and others who are part of this space to get better solutions for Australians. I want to commend them for their engagement on this.</para>
<para>Since I was appointed to this new role as Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, I have, as you would expect, spent a lot of time talking to people around the country who are really seriously affected by Australia's housing crisis. I have talked to a lot of renters, a group I am very, very concerned about right now, people who are in real distress and who are seeing rents rising too frequently and too fast. I've seen and talked to people who are trying to get into housing. They've told me their stories of standing in queues to look at rentals which have had literally 100 people in them. I've talked to renters who are being treated really badly by their landlords, who are living in homes where there's black mould that will not be removed and where the basic functionality of the home is not being looked after. I know that, for renters, that is combined with this incredibly deep sense of injustice that they are every day, they feel, moving further away from that dream of homeownership.</para>
<para>I've talked to young people who I am also really worried about. We have had a promise in our country for a long time that generations of Australians can have a reasonable expectation of homeownership. I know this generation of young people feel that that is slipping beyond their grasp.</para>
<para>What we see is that the net effect of all that's going on in housing at the moment is flowing directly through to the homelessness sector. I was very pleased and honoured to open National Homelessness Week. A couple of weeks ago I talked to activists all over the sector. I also talked to some people who are long-term homeless. There are absolutely gut-wrenching stories about things that have seen people pushed into homelessness. I've also spoken to people who have been able to come out of it and people who have talked to me about the fact that, after a lifetime of abuse and neglect has occurred for them, secure and affordable housing has been a pathway towards them being able to address those problems and rebuild their lives.</para>
<para>Suffice it to say I have enormous passion for the project that is in front of me. Housing is not about nuts and bolts. It's not just about bricks and mortar. This is the foundation on which every person living in our country builds their life and experiences the citizenship that we offer here, and so nothing could be more important right now than trying to address the concerns of millions of people around our country for whom housing is a life-defining issue.</para>
<para>This housing crisis has been a generation in the making. There are complex causes of the problem, but if I could distil it down to one thing it would be the failure of governments at varying levels over a whole set of decades to properly invest in, think about and develop policies to make sure that we have enough homes in our country. The member for Kooyong spoke a little bit about this in her address. The bottom line and fundamental problem and the issues that people are seeing in the housing market at the moment all come back to the fact that we have not been building enough homes, and we are still not building enough homes fast enough.</para>
<para>That is why our government is stepping into this space. We came into government two years ago after a decade of complete and abject neglect in this policy area. I want to share two facts about that neglect. The first is that we came out of a period of nine years of coalition government and, for the last five years of that government, housing ministers around this country did not meet once. This has got to be a collaboration between the states and the Commonwealth and, indeed, local government. The housing ministers did not meet once. I can tell you something too: we have launched a $32 billion homes for Australians plan and we spent more, invested more, in housing in just our last federal budget than the coalition did in their entire nine years combined. That's how seriously they took this issue.</para>
<para>We are a nation today led by a person whose access to safe, secure and affordable housing in his childhood transformed the entire trajectory of his life. We have a housing crisis in this country and a Prime Minister who grew up in public housing, so it's not surprising that we have a bold and ambitious agenda to try to address the problem that's in front of us. Our government has worked with the states and territories to build a target for housing across the country. We have an ambitious, bold goal of building 1.2 million homes in our country in the coming five years. It is bold and ambitious, and it is bold and ambitious because not being bold and ambitious is not going to help us fix this problem. It is exactly what we need to do.</para>
<para>This means that the Commonwealth has got to get in and get more active in housing policy. You've seen that in the national leadership that we've provided, in funding and incentives that have been provided to state governments to get homes built more quickly. You've seen it in the tremendous work that has been done around skills and in training more tradies, funding more apprenticeships and growing that workforce. There were 20,000 fee-free TAFE places in the last budget alone to improve the number of construction workers in our country. Of course, there's that really important investment in social housing that our government has made, delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade to help reduce homelessness. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is critical to this.</para>
<para>The fruits of all this effort are starting to come forward in the community. Actually, this morning I had this incredible experience of going out with the ACT housing minister, Yvette Berry, and looking at three new public housing units that the ACT government is just about to move new tenants in to. What the government has done here is take what was an enormous block of land here in Canberra and build three brand-new units. These are units that are designed for proper access for people with disability, and they are designed for people, women in particular, who are fleeing from violence with their children. This is really important work that's happening, and it's a real pleasure to be part of it.</para>
<para>We have this big goal of building 1.2 million homes over a five-year period, but I really want Australians to hear that we understand that you are in pain right now and of course that's not all we're doing. Of course we have a suite of policies aimed at trying to help people get the relief that they need while they wait for more homes to come online.</para>
<para>So a few really important things have happened here. The member for Kooyong talked about the increases to Commonwealth rent assistance. We have just executed two back-to-back increases to Commonwealth rent assistance. That's the first time that has happened in 30 years. There are more than a million households around the country who now have more than $1,000 a year extra in their pockets since we came to government, through those increases to rent assistance. We're working through National Cabinet to improve the rental experience too, and there are some really important commitments that the states have signed up to as part of the National Housing Accord to make sure that, for people who are in rentals, they're being treated appropriately.</para>
<para>I also want to call out the work that is being done on the Home Guarantee Scheme. We have helped 110,000 Australians get into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme. That's twice the number that were supported under the previous government. I've talked a little bit about the government's agenda and things that have already been agreed to and funded. I want to be really clear here: I recognise that there is more that needs to be done. No-one is pretending that the crisis is fixed and no-one is pretending that the crisis is over, but what I hope people hear from me is that we have a really good offering here—$32 billion that will be invested in housing. I as minister am dedicated to providing the drive and energy we need to actually see that money hit the ground and make sure that people feel the effects.</para>
<para>I do want to mention that we have two really important pieces of policy that are stuck in the Senate at the moment that the Greens and the Liberals are refusing to move forward. They have built this incredibly hyperpoliticised and very unfortunate alliance, which has blocked just about everything that we have tried to do to support the housing needs of Australians. It's really disappointing. There are two important initiatives here. One is called a help to buy scheme. This is something that would be critical in helping Australians who are on the lower end of the income spectrum to access the housing market when they otherwise wouldn't be able to do that. The other is creating a better build-to-rent market here in Australia, something the member for Kooyong also talked about.</para>
<para>I would say that we've got a really significant problem on our hands here as a country. We're not going to fix this by doing politics as usual. I call on all parties in the government to emulate the best practice of the member for Kooyong, bring these discussions forward and work together to try to make a fix for this.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is our collective responsibility to leave the next generation with better opportunities than we've had—to be good ancestors. But, in failing to address housing affordability, we are not living up to this responsibility. Across Australian capital cities, house prices relative to incomes have become some of the highest in the world, with Sydney having the second most unaffordable housing in the world after Hong Kong.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that the government has made some positive steps in this place and has put housing on the agenda in this parliament. I think that's absolutely critical, and I know the government has committed significant resources to this area. But I believe that, after two decades of what is, frankly, buck-passing between federal, state and local governments and the major parties, we have to do more. We have to do more here, but we also have to do more at each of the other levels of government.</para>
<para>There are four key areas where the federal government can have a significant impact that goes even further than where it is now. Firstly, we need to strengthen the incentives for state and local governments to unlock housing approvals in Australian urban areas. Secondly, we need to support the availability of skills and materials, to bring down costs and increase the viability of development. Thirdly, we need to push the states to improve renters' rights, particularly in New South Wales, where I'm from and where we still have no-grounds evictions, which are undermining renters' rights across my state. Finally, we need to reform the tax system to provide greater and more equal opportunities for housing in Australia.</para>
<para>Housing represents a fundamental source of security that enables family planning, as well as a comfortable retirement. But housing is increasingly out of reach for younger generations. Since 1981, the rate of homeownership for those aged between 30 and 34 has declined 20 per cent, to fewer than half. Over the same period, the share of people relying on the bank of mum and dad to buy their first home has increased from 19 per cent to 40 per cent. That is not the Australian dream. We are a country where it doesn't matter what your parents earn. It shouldn't matter what they have. You should have access to those opportunities and the ability, if you're a nurse and a teacher coming together, to build a home or buy a home and set up your family. Unaffordable housing increases inequality and division in our society, robs our cities of essential workers, worsens the brain drain of our best and brightest, and discourages migrants, who we need as our population naturally ages.</para>
<para>I'd like to start, firstly, on the area of the National Housing Accord and how to build these homes. This target of 1.2 million homes that the government has committed to focusing on is absolutely critical. But I'm concerned that the target is seen as out of reach and that we don't have interim incentives for the states and local governments to take action now and to help them through the difficult planning and reforms that they need to take on and sell to the electorate over the next period of five years. They need some interim support to deliver this.</para>
<para>My second significant concern is about the skills and the materials. I agree with the RBA that, frankly, our infrastructure pipeline, both at the federal level and at all the state levels, is so significant that it is actually increasing construction costs in both labour and materials, at a time when our focus must be on housing. So I call on the government to delay the infrastructure spending that it can, particularly those large projects that are competing on those costs, and, at the same time, to reform the new fast-track migrant visa to ensure that construction workers are not kept out of that visa group, because we should, if we need them, be bringing in that group of construction workers as fast as we possibly can.</para>
<para>Thirdly, I would like to see the government continue to put pressure on the states, possibly through incentives, to make the reforms to rental rights that are absolutely required, in terms of both no-grounds evictions and increasing the incentives for longer-term leases. I recognise that what is actually before the Senate at the moment—and it's something I spoke on this morning—is the opportunity to increase social and affordable housing by improving those tax incentives and also, at the same time, to increase affordable housing and long-term leases for those people in build-to-rent environments. I think that's absolutely critical, and I urge the Senate to adopt those bills.</para>
<para>Finally, I'm going to talk about the tax system, because there are a number of taxes that affect the housing system. They are not the main driver, but they are key. Stamp duty is a tax on people who move. It is inequitable. It is a state tax, but the federal government can be part of driving the solution. Secondly, negative gearing and capital gains tax are not the main drivers of cost of housing, but they do play into the difficulties for people to own their own homes, and I think that is a reasonable thing for the government to be looking at.</para>
<para>There are few areas that are going to define the opportunities of a generation. Housing is one, and it is one that we must act on in this parliament and in every parliament in the future. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kooyong for bringing forward this matter of public importance. While we all agree we need to build more homes, the member for Kooyong and I also agree we need to build more finals campaigns for the Carlton Football Club—something that, unfortunately, I don't think is going to be happening this year, Member for Kooyong. It's causing me great distress in this place. Anyway, I thank the member for Kooyong for this matter of public importance.</para>
<para>We do need to build more homes for Australia. In fact, what we need to be is YIMBYs. We need more YIMBYs in this place—'Yes, in my back yard'—not NIMBYs, which is what the Greens are not only in our community but all around the country. There isn't a housing project that they don't like to oppose. Even on the building of social housing in my electorate, the Greens are running up and down the electorate saying, 'Not in our back yard.' There isn't a public housing project that the Greens aren't willing to oppose—certainly not in Port Melbourne.</para>
<para>We on the side of the House understand that we actually need to build more homes if we are to have more homes. You can't have more homes if you object to more homes, as the Greens like to do. If you object to a government program that would help Australians who have only up to two per cent for a deposit to get into the housing market, you can't then expect more Australians to get into the housing market, but that is the Greens' approach. They stand in the Senate with their fists raised high, saying, 'We don't want to support the government's Help to Buy scheme,' and then they complain that we don't have enough help to buy. This is the classic example.</para>
<para>But you wouldn't think that the Greens are doing this by themselves. No, it's not just the Greens. They have very good mates over there in the Liberals and Nationals. Those two groups are chummy. They are really tight these days, because they know that, if they work together, they can block as many houses as possible. They can block the Housing Australia Future Fund for ages. They can block the Help to Buy scheme. They can block the build-to-rent scheme. The Greens are as thick as thieves with the Liberal Party and the National Party, and they are willing to work together.</para>
<para>It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Every single time that the government has tried to get back to the table and use the levers of government to try and ensure that there are more homes for more Australians, the Greens and the Liberal Party have huddled in their little group and said: 'We've got to block this one. We've got to work together to slow them down, because it's in our political interests to slow down the government.' That is their approach. It's all about politics and not about building more homes.</para>
<para>We know that right now Australians are doing it tough to get into the housing market. We know that in relation to the price of housing, when you look at the cost of building homes and the cost of going through the planning processes, a lot of the levers are not the levers of the federal government; they are the levers of local and state governments. Those are the levers that we absolutely need to be working on collaboratively with other levels of government in order to ensure that there is more land and there are more opportunities for more homes to be built for more Australians. But the Greens and the Liberal Party are hell-bent either on taking the federal government out of all construction of homes—as those opposite did, having washed their hands of any responsibility for building homes in the social and affordable housing sector at all—or, like the Greens, on letting every opportunity become a political opportunity. The Greens want to build lots of campaigns but don't want to build many homes.</para>
<para>That's where we are right now. We are waiting for the Greens and the Liberals to stop working together so that we can get those two important reforms through the Senate. At the same time, we have a fantastic new Minister for Housing who is building off the really important work of the previous Minister for Housing, with $30-plus billion worth of investment into housing right across the country. That is all about trying to ensure that the federal government is doing its bit in investing in the construction of new homes right around the country, whether it be thousands and thousands of social housing homes or homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence. We know that too many women and children have that wicked choice between staying in a dangerous place and having nowhere to go, and we need to do more to ensure that that doesn't become a reality for Australians, as we know it is each and every day.</para>
<para>We are also investing in the long-term housing pipeline to ensure that the federal government is doing its bit, but this really has to be a collaborative effort between state government, local government and federal government. It's an investment in budget and also an investment in reform. We need everyone saying yes. We need everyone working together. We don't need the Greens and the Liberal Party slowing things down and saying, 'Not in my backyard.' They're working together, huddled together and fighting against the Labor Party for votes. We should be building more houses, not building political campaigns like the Greens are in this country. So, we say yes to more homes, while the Greens are going to fight it each and every day.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the member for Kooyong, as I did the member for Indi earlier this week who brought a motion into the parliament looking at housing. I particularly commend the member for Kooyong's matter of public importance today because we need to make sure that this issue stays on the agenda.</para>
<para>I supported the government's Housing Australia Future Fund and its Social Housing Accelerator program, but I must say that while I supported these significant investments, I don't believe that they alone will be a panacea for our housing crisis. We also need to look at the demand that we're creating. According to Treasury and OECD figures, Australia has fewer dwellings per 1,000 people than the OECD average, and we've a supply of just 420 per 1,000 people. This places us in the bottom 11 countries, well below the OECD average. I believe this imbalance has been worsened—and my community believes it has been worsened—by the record migration numbers.</para>
<para>As reported in syndicated papers today, the government's 'big Australia' policy has somewhat exacerbated the housing problem that we have today. We've seen 1.15 million migrants come into Australia since the change of government. This represents 62 per cent more migrants than under the Rudd-Gillard government, which was the previous record holder, and more migrants in 27 months then under the Hawke-Keating government, which was in power for 156 months.</para>
<para>The unchecked intake is supercharging demand on housing; it's supercharging demand on everything. In 2022, the median housing price was 4.9 times the median gross disposable income. In early 2024, this increased to 8.6 times. It's also taking Australians much longer to save for a deposit. Back in 2022, it took less than seven years to save a 20 per cent deposit. Now, it's taking 11 years.</para>
<para>We know homeownership gives you the greatest financial stability in life; it gives security and stability. The best chance of you having a good life into retirement relies on you owning your own home. For those lucky enough to own a home, the cost of servicing these loans has crippled household budgets after 12 interest rate rises. The RBA acknowledges that migration under the Labor government has contributed to inflation, and that has led to these interest rate rises. So I think we need to have a very sober conversation about migration when we're talking about housing.</para>
<para>It is even more difficult for renters, especially in the regions. As I mentioned in a speech earlier this week, the Domain June 2024 rental report shows a quarter-on-quarter increase of 0.8 per cent for houses and 4.3 per cent for units in Adelaide. Going to the regions, in Mount Barker the increase was 10.8 per cent to June and a staggering 52.7 per cent over five years. Similarly, rent in Victor Harbor has increased by more than 50 per cent over the last five years. We are seeing people who have grown up in an area being forced out of that area simply because they can't afford to live there. Local government areas of Alexandrina, encompassing the Fleurieu, and Kangaroo Island have experienced a 20 per cent annual increase in rent and a five-year increase to 76.5 per cent. These figures are absurd, and they're forcing people into poverty.</para>
<para>None of the government's policies or initiatives aimed at increasing housing supply will work if, as I said, we don't also address the demand side of this issue. Current projections are that a child born today will be nearly 40 years old—this is assuming they start work at the age of 20—before they've saved enough for their housing deposit. That means that in one generation, effectively, we've taken away the great Australian dream. Shame on us for doing that. This is not the future that I want for my children or for my grandchildren. I urge us all to work together to look at solutions that look at supply. They also must look at the demand side of the equation. Otherwise, we're just creating a Ponzi scheme here.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a really important MPI about the housing crisis currently facing Australia, so I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to talk about some of the policies that our government is putting in place. Last week was national Homelessness Week, a week which raises awareness of homelessness in Australia and the importance of social and affordable housing as a long-term solution. Of course, in a country like Australia, everyone should have a safe place to call home, and this is something that our government is working on.</para>
<para>To mark the week, I visited the Early Morning Centre here in my electorate on Northbourne Avenue and talked to Nicole Wiggins, who runs the Early Morning Centre, to hear about how they're going with their service, which provides vital support to people experiencing homelessness in Canberra. They provide food, but they also provide services and link people up with a range of supports there at their place at the Uniting Church. I'm proud to have engaged with them regularly over the five years I've been an MP, but before I was in parliament I was a regular volunteer there for a long time.</para>
<para>Before that, I volunteered for many years at another organisation, talking with people experiencing homelessness. I think understanding the issues that can lead anyone into homelessness and the accompanying problems that people then experience gives a powerful example of why a home is so important. For anyone to build their life and have a happy, healthy and fulfilled life, it must start with the security of a place to call home.</para>
<para>Those experiences of talking with those people are a big part of what led me to want to be in politics and be part of governments that are going to fix these problems. While there are many in our community doing amazing work, like the Early Morning Centre and the volunteers there—and I want to quickly shout out to everyone in Canberra that is supporting people facing homelessness—it is governments that have a really important role in ensuring that people can find a place to call home. That's why I'm so proud that that is exactly what we've seen from the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>A few weeks ago I was really proud to join the former housing minister Julie Collins and also our ACT housing minister Yvette Berry to visit some new public housing in my electorate which had recently been completed and was ready to go in the inner north. We heard about how soon some Canberrans would be moving into that excellent housing. It was well designed, with beautiful, bright homes in a great location. We just heard the new minister talking about more of these dwellings that are going to be opened in Canberra shortly. It's projects like this that are being built all across the nation as part of our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan.</para>
<para>Additionally, our government and state and territory governments have recently signed a new agreement on social housing and homelessness. That agreement will see the ACT receive $157 million in funding to boost their construction program and build scores of new, additional public homes. This is what happens when you have the different levels of government working hand in hand together to address a crisis affecting Australians.</para>
<para>We all know that there is a shortage of housing, and we know that we need to build more homes quickly all around the country. That's why one of the first things we did when we came to government was sign the once-in-a-generation National Housing Accord with the states and territories, with the ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. It will be the most homes that have been built in our history. To date, the government has invested $32 billion to build those new homes. In fact, in the last budget alone, there was more money for new homes than in all of the budgets of the former government combined.</para>
<para>Our government is providing national leadership on this issue. We're funding and incentivising states and territories to get more homes built. We're training more tradies, funding more apprenticeships and growing the workforce. We're delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade to help reduce homelessness. For people who are renting, we've increased rent assistance, and for those looking to buy for the first time we've assisted more than 110,000 Australians through the Home Guarantee Scheme.</para>
<para>There's always more we can do, and I know that, when I'm talking to my community here in Canberra, housing is of course an issue at front of mind, but I am proud to be part of a government that also has this at front of mind and is working to get homes for Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also would like to thank the member for Kooyong for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. Having a roof over our heads is something that most of us take for granted. I say 'most' because there are Australians who do know what it's like to be homeless. Having been homeless myself by the ravages of war, I spent many years as a refugee, never knowing any sense of a permanent or stable home environment. Like the Prime Minister, I also grew up in public housing after our resettlement here in Australia. We were incredibly lucky, privileged and grateful that Australia had the right economic circumstances for us to rebuild our lives and the opportunities to work for a stable and prosperous future.</para>
<para>As we've been hearing today in the House, the economic conditions are becoming more challenging for many working Australians, also making it harder for our young people and those on low income to save to buy a home or even to rent. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to understand that high prices are driven by a shortage in housing supply. Whilst population increase is measured across the whole of Australia, it is not evenly distributed. Australia has relied more and more on immigration to boost population growth as birth rates have decreased, and the major cities have inevitably seen populations boom because that's where the jobs and infrastructure are. My electorate of Fowler has felt the increase particularly sharply, especially in the past decade, where we have seen almost 20,000 refugees and asylum seekers resettled in my electorate. These new arrivals require a roof over their heads and also create demand for services.</para>
<para>With over 50 per cent of Fowler's population born overseas, compared to 30 per cent of Australia, many come here to make a new life, seeking opportunities. Homeownership is a pipe dream for anybody other than the super-rich as the incredible cost of building new homes means that it's becoming nearly impossible even to find a home to rent. In Fowler, almost 44 per cent of the population rent. With a high population on low incomes, how on earth can these individuals afford the increase in rents as well? This is a terrible situation.</para>
<para>Homeownership is about more than just financial security for those who live in them; homeownership inculcates a commitment to a local community. It strengthens the ties that bind us to our neighbours and to our country. Many of the great buildings of Australia such as the New South Wales parliament building and the Queen Victoria Building were built before government regulation had reached its tentacles into the finest details of the planning and building processes. Yes, we have seen a sea change in the safety and welfare provisions for workers in that span of time, and many of those regulations are good and in the best interests of us all, but the taxation and regulation of the building industry is another example of the ability to legislate going out of control.</para>
<para>I know that the Prime Minister had faced attacks from his own New South Wales state premier on the lack of housing, so, in the spirit of the House of Representatives's cooperation and solidarity, I want to help him. The fact is that New South Wales's state taxation and planning restrictions play a significant role in the cost of building houses in our great state. The zoning tax, for example, is the price you pay for the legal right to put a dwelling on a piece of land. This rate obviously increases the value. In Sydney, zoning tax accountant for 42 per cent of the cost of a house in 68 per cent of the cost of an apartment in 2016. That's before we even begin talking about increasing costs of Labor and building material. The Prime Minister could do something at the federal level to pressure his state and territory colleagues to increase the housing supply. He could remind Premier Minns that he stood beside him at the announcement of the National Housing Accord. Instead of the Premier asking for more money from the federal government, he could be reminded that New South Wales has been given a lot of money for infrastructure already. Every opportunity should be taken, when federal infrastructure funds go out to the states and territories, to make it conditional on building a specific number of new homes. Writing cheques for Sydney Metro's Beaches Link and the Aerotropolis project should be accompanied by the demand to build them.</para>
<para>Unless the nettle is grasped on increasing housing supply, we are going to see profound change for the worse in our societal values and standard of living. We don't need to wait for things to get worse; I think we're already there.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank my colleague and neighbour, the member for Kooyong, for raising this important motion. Like her, I have very many young Australians struggling to find a home. I have a great many young adults still living with their parents. I have people who are now living in cars in council car parks, and is this happening in Higgins, which should give you an indication as to how bad it is elsewhere. It's not as if they don't have a job. They do have jobs. It's just that they can't make rent. We have too many Australians right around the country who are spinning their wheels in this purgatory of insecure housing. We're even seeing the emergence of tent cities in some parts of our country, which is an absolute indictment and should not be happening in a country that is one of the wealthiest in the world. In the OECD, we are the 11th-wealthiest country when it comes to a average income. There's no shortage of money in this country.</para>
<para>When it comes to housing, Australian dwellings peaked in 2016 and have been in decline ever since. When you compare us to the OECD, which is a club of mostly rich countries, we have below-average rates of social and affordable housing. What added to this, of course, was this major shock, the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, rental vacancies were sitting in the healthy three-to-four per cent range. After the pandemic, they plummeted to one per cent or less. In the last few months, we've seen an increase in rental vacancies, with consecutive increases over several months. But they're still way too low, sitting around 1½ per cent. It should be in the three-to-four per cent band. That's a sign of a healthy rental market. That has happened largely because the way people live has changed. Living arrangements have changed. People prefer to live in smaller households.</para>
<para>Before I talk about what we're going to do about it, let me tell you what we are not going to do about it. What we are not going to do is pit one Australian against another. We are not going to pit young against old. We are not going to pit the states against the Commonwealth. We are not going to pit property developers against everyone else. That is not how you solve a problem of this scale and magnitude. The blame game has to end, and it certainly has ended with us in this government. We have a Prime Minister who grew up in social housing to a single mother who was on a disability pension. He knew what economic deprivation was about. And, thanks to a roof over his head, he climbed the ladder of social mobility. That is what we want for every single Australian.</para>
<para>What we have is an ambitious plan to build 1.2 million homes through our National Housing Accord. It's called an accord for a reason. It channels the spirit of Bob Hawke, who had an accord at a time of great economic crisis in Australia. The accord is basically a coming-together and an agreement between states, territories, Commonwealth, industry and other stakeholders to get a big problem solved. Yes, it is ambitious, but we need to be ambitious, given the scale of the problem. We currently have around 169,000 households on the public waiting list for social—meaning public—housing. When you add all the people waiting community and Indigenous housing, that number rises to over 220,000. That's just the backlog. We then have to also build to accommodate growth in our population and the need for key workers. Our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan aims for building, buying and renting. It is a plan which has many moving parts to it, but essentially it's about cutting red tape, skilling up more tradies and incentivising the states to build. We know the Commonwealth does not hold all the levers. We do not, for example, control planning and zoning.</para>
<para>There is another ingredient that we do to some degree influence along with every other leader in this House and at the state and even local council levels, and that is the issue of NIMBYism. We really need as a country to take hard, long look at this issue of NIMBYism. It has led to the entrenchment of inequality in our country. People have said, hand on heart—and even in my electorate this happens—that they want more housing, just 'not in my backyard'. That has to stop. That narrative has got to stop. This problem is far too great, and it condemns our children to a lifetime of renting. We have increased Commonwealth rent assistance with two back-to-back increases. We're now putting $6 billion into the pockets of renters, which is helping 1.5 million Australians who are at acute risk of homelessness, and we've also expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has seen 110,000 Australians move into homes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Queensland has recently been characterised as the homelessness capital of Australia. The statistics are eye watering. Brisbane property prices have increased by 65 per cent since 2020—almost double the Australian capital city average of 34 per cent. Across the state, new tenancy rents also climbed faster than across the nation, rising by 45 per cent over the same period. With the market in its current state, it is without doubt that it's renters and first home buyers that are going to be at the sharp end of this crisis. These conditions have pushed more people into homelessness as well. The number of people depending on homelessness services has surged by more than 34 per cent since 2020. This housing crisis is an intergenerational and economic justice issue.</para>
<para>This government goes on and on about how well it's doing, but that is not how the community feels on the ground. Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. House prices continue to soar. Rents continue to soar. Interest rates aren't coming down, and vacancy rates continue to make it incredibly difficult even to find a home to live in in the first place. Tinkering around the edges with some poorly put together, neoliberal policies just will not work. The housing market in this country is structurally broken, so it's time to think outside the box. But when you see the world through a neoliberal lens, as this government does, that influences both how you perceive problems and how you find solutions.</para>
<para>The reason this government is not doing anything bold or system changing is because those opposite think they're nailing it. They've tried all these poorly put together, neoliberal policies, but they're out of ideas. The reason the government only puts forward these bandaid neoliberal solutions is that that's all they're capable of. That's all their politics will allow them to do. I say to the already seemingly embattled new minister: think outside the box, outside neoliberalism. A public developer is needed to pick up the private sector's inaction. We need a huge bill of public housing to provide homes that are actually affordable, not just at a small discount from market rate. We need a rent freeze and caps to provide relief to people right now, and we need to wind back negative gearing and change the capital gains tax discount.</para>
<para>Research out this week from the Australian Institute has revealed that the 200 richest people in this country now have a combined wealth equal to 25 per cent of national GDP. These levels of inequality will harm our country more and more the worse they get. The report argues that there is no way to meaningfully address this housing crisis or even the cost-of-living crisis without tackling the huge levels of wealth disparity that are fuelling both of these crises. To quote the report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Although the political barriers to making this change are likely to be substantial, failure to confront the problem will consign the nation to ever-increasing inequality.</para></quote>
<para>So there we have it. Outside-the-box solutions are needed if this country has any hope of an egalitarian future—something we like to think we already have but we all know, deep down, we do not.</para>
<para>Two and a half years of this government and what next? A build-to-rent bill, which was universally panned by experts and lobby groups from all sides of politics, and more of the same tired thinking—not bold and not courageous. We have a government that has thrown in the towel. This is a government that doesn't want to rock the boat, doesn't want system change, and is more concerned about not upsetting the LNP or the megawealthy. People have hit breaking point and won't tolerate business as usual anymore. The longer this government does not act, the worst this problem gets. We cannot just wait for the market to sort itself out, because the market is the problem. All this does is kick the can down the road. We need solutions outside the box. Bandaids here and there do not cut it. This is about addressing rampant wealth inequality and intergenerational unfairness. Housing is a human right, and it is about time the government treated it as such.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the way in which all members have come to this debate. We all agree that housing affordability is a huge issue in this country; however, unlike the previous member, the member for Brisbane, we don't treat this as a debating society. We aren't talking about political philosophy here; we're talking about pragmatic solutions to actually address the housing affordability issue.</para>
<para>I like the out-of-the-box thinking that the member for Brisbane is proposing, and if this was a reality show where we tried to pit idea against idea, sure, we'd bring out this out-of-the-box thinking. But, of course, there are constitutional issues with the policies that he proposes. There's also a reality issue with the policies that he proposes. Who does he think builds developments? Who does he think builds homes? There are private-sector developers, and we don't want to badmouth them and kick them out of this country and have a total government takeover, because that is not what is going to make a material difference on the ground when it comes to getting more homes built. That will probably delay homes being built, because you would have to set up a whole system of government funded builders and developers to go out and start building, and that takes time.</para>
<para>He and I both recognise the real challenges of housing affordability in this country. It is especially pronounced in Sydney, the city that I lived in. Sydney is ranked as the world's second-least affordable market, after Hong Kong, and housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges for Sydneysiders. But it hasn't always been this way. When my parents came to this country more than four decades ago, they worked hard and were able to buy a home within five years of coming to this country. Our family's success was possible because they had the stability of housing, but that stability is out of reach for so many people in Sydney now.</para>
<para>So how did we get here, because a problem this big does not spring up in two years? It's a problem that has been brewing for years and years. As the previous members who have spoken on this issue have pointed out, the key challenge is that we are not building enough homes. We're not building enough affordable, social and private housing. We are not building enough of all of it—the whole gamut. We are here in this situation because of a decade of complete and utter failure from those opposite. At both the federal and New South Wales levels, coalition governments have failed us because, when they were in government, they showed little to no interest in addressing housing supply, and that is what has left us with this critical shortage.</para>
<para>Fortunately, we now have Labor governments at the federal and state levels in New South Wales that are laser focused on addressing housing affordability. In our first federal budget, the Treasurer announced our ambitious goal of building one million new homes over five years. Through the Housing Australia Future Fund, we are making the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. In our second federal budget, we boosted homelessness funding to state and territory governments and increased rent assistance for renters while putting rent reform on the agenda for National Cabinet. In our most recent budget we announced $6.2 billion in new investment to build more homes and support Australians. In this budget alone there has been more investment in housing than in all nine of the federal coalition budgets combined. That is how seriously we take this issue.</para>
<para>In Australia we like to build big things: the Snowy Hydro scheme, the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I think that the next big project for us ought to be building more social and affordable housing. It will make a difference in people's lives. Finally we have a government that is willing to step up to the challenge—not only to step up to the challenge but to help people build more homes and to enable them to get rent and afford to buy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't need to spell out just how bad the housing crisis has become, as so many are living it, but the figures are truly alarming. In Brisbane, house prices have doubled in the last 10 years, growing by nearly 15 per cent in the last year alone. Meanwhile, wages in Australia are stagnating or actually going backwards. Renters are trapped in a vicious cycle, unable to save for a deposit because average rents have spiked 43 per cent in the last few years, and you would need to find 61 per cent of the average wage to service a mortgage. In Brisbane, you need an income of almost $200,000 a year and a deposit of $165,000, which is completely unaffordable for so many.</para>
<para>The Albanese government continues to ignore the crisis and push fake solutions that only make the problem worse, like offering up money for a vanishingly small number of first home buyers. This will only drive up house prices further. Every day, people know that this is a huge problem. Recent polling shows that 73 per cent of people think housing should be a basic human right, while only nine per cent said it should be a vehicle for growing personal wealth; 15 per cent of people believe that house prices should continue to rise, while 45 per cent want them to stabilise and 40 per cent want them to fall. Yet the Labor government continues to offer fake solutions, policies that throw more money at the very people who created this crisis with their massive profits and corporate greed.</para>
<para>Labor is unwilling to touch negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, locking in skyrocketing house prices. These policies are rigged in favour of wealthy investors and property developers. The major parties don't want house prices to stabilise, because it goes against the interests of their friends in the property industry. The idea that housing should be a basic human right isn't radical. It's not extreme. It's common sense. It's a necessity. Housing is fundamental to the flourishing of our society. Everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to live.</para>
<para>The government needs to get back to the business of building homes. Bring property development back into public hands to build homes for people, not for profit. We've done it before in Australia—post-World War II, when up to a quarter of new homes built were public housing. But now the number of social homes per capita in Queensland alone has fallen by 10 per cent in the last decade. People are sleeping in tents, and parents are living in cars with their children, all because of the government's utter failure to invest in and build enough public housing. For too long, private developers have been given free rein to control the housing market. Housing should, at its most basic level, be about people having homes, not for speculative wealth generation for some. Even with a deposit, only 13 per cent of the homes sold in 2022-23 were affordable for a median-income household. We've seen affordable housing stock fall from 5.6 per cent to just 3.8 per cent, and, compared to other OECD countries, the amount of social and affordable housing we have in our system is appallingly low.</para>
<para>Over the next 10 years, Labor will give property investors $175 billion in tax handouts through negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. Meanwhile, most renters and mortgage holders will get nothing. Labor is giving money to big investors, turbocharging house prices, and pretty much screwing over everyone else. Labor's so-called Help to Buy scheme does nothing for 99.8 per cent of renters who are denied access to this scheme. It could actually make the housing crisis worse by putting more pressure on house prices. And their build to rent scheme, just more tax breaks for developers to build unaffordable apartments.</para>
<para>How do we solve this crisis? We scrap tax handouts for investors so that renters finally have a chance to buy their first home, freeze and cap rent increases to make it illegal for landlords to hike up the rent as much as they want and invest the savings we make from scrapping investor tax handouts into a government owned developer that will build homes for people to buy and rent for cheap. Building homes—we used to do it. We need a housing system that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7211" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7209" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7210" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7219" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7223" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise, in continuation, to debate the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, a bill that I strongly support. We need a future made in Australia to also help hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation, heavy industry and the built environment decarbonise with low-carbon fuels like green hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuels. It's absolutely crucial to the decarbonisation journey of this country. But what we have failed to acknowledge is the vast human capital needed in order to make that future made in Australia a reality. It highlights the opportunities for young Australians, if they're thinking about future careers. We have an abundance of resources in our nation, resources beneath our feet, resources in the sky and, of course, the resources that walk among us—our human capital. Knowledge workers, tradies and blue- and white-collar workers all have a place in a future made in Australia. We make around 8,500 PhDs a year. We need to stop losing them to the hunger games of academia and give them a berth in local, homegrown industries. We have around 500,000 people—we've clicked over half a million—who have signed up to fee-free TAFE, and they will absolutely be a part of a future made in Australia. Those jobs are theirs for the asking. But these workers, young and old alike, need industries to absorb them—industries that are future focused and are exploiting the opportunities of the net zero transition that is already well underway globally and the key markets in Asia that are on our doorstep. I can see some children up in the stands; this is for you.</para>
<para>These nascent industries, however, need help. They need support to help them compete in a distorted global market. We call ourselves an open free-market economy. The rest of the world isn't necessarily that way, so we need to give our industries a helping hand. Elsewhere, those businesses are getting incentives, tax breaks and government subsidies. That's the international reality we live in, and there's no hiding from it. The playing field has changed. If we want to make manufacturing return and then boom in Australia—and of course this side of the House does—we must make it easier for companies to go from small to medium and then leap to hopefully large-scale enterprises. There are far too many roadblocks at the moment, and that is something this bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill, addresses.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia act will be guided by a national interest framework with priority industries identified under two streams: the net zero transformation stream, focusing on renewable hydrogen, green metals and low-carbon liquid fuels; and the economic resilience and security stream, focusing on critical minerals, clean energy manufacturing and applying stronger policy overall. In general, the Future Made in Australia Bill has over $22 billion in it, and it's directed towards grants, production credits and cutting red tape in order to enable investors, whether they be domestic or foreign, to better connect with the bureaucracy and with investment vehicles within the government.</para>
<para>Investment vehicles include the National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund dedicated to making things in Australia again and getting high-tech, advanced manufacturing back in Australia. Whether it be defence capabilities, health care, renewable energy or ag tech, we want it all back. AI and quantum are also included in that. There's a lot of money backing that. That's the future we want, not for us but for those kids up there.</para>
<para>It's also important to note that those opposite voted against the National Reconstruction Fund. They don't believe in government handouts. They have their heads in the sand when it comes to the global reality. Australian companies are not competing on a level playing field globally. They need the help of government, given how far back we have fallen after a decade of Liberal inaction that watched industries after industries depart our country, the most egregious being the car industry.</para>
<para>These grants will include $8 billion to support green hydrogen over the next 10 years, mostly as production credits, which means that they are only paid out on success—when the green hydrogen is made. We talked to experts, and we think that commercial-scale green hydrogen is somewhere between five to eight years away. It's not that hard to make. You need sunshine, you need an electrolyser, and you need water. So there is a race on globally to make green hydrogen because it is essential as an alternative to our fossil fuels—our petrol and diesel, which are used by heavy industry.</para>
<para>We also have $7 billion over 11 years in tax incentives for critical mineral processing, and we have over half a billion, $549 million, for battery manufacturing. We've also invested close to half a billion in quantum computing. If there are any young people out there interested in maths and computer science, quantum computing could be a destination for you. Your pathway could be through science and/or engineering and then onto a higher degree like a master's or a PhD and then straight into this industry, which we are now establishing in Australia, and we make no apologies for it.</para>
<para>I would suggest to the Liberals that, for their sins, this is an opportunity to atone for the mistakes they made when they were in government, particularly around the departure of the car industry. I didn't really realise at the time what that meant for our country, but the enormity of it has actually landed—the loss of those jobs and those skills. The multiplier effect that came from that one high-tech industry cannot even be quantified. They could atone for that by voting for this Future Made in Australia Bill and give those kids up there in the gallery a pathway to secure, well-paid jobs in the future that they want. That's a future that is decarbonised and high-tech, with high living standards and well-paid, secure jobs in industries that they want—not what you want but what they want.</para>
<para>Manufacturing is not just a sector; it is a capability. It is essential to our prosperity and to our national security. It is a capability that drives innovation, productivity, incomes, international trade and supply chains and it has a multiplier effect. A virtual cycle spins up when manufacturing returns. One business leads to another business and another. A good example is renewable energy. Offshore wind zones are attracting data centres. Why? Because they are energy thirsty. That is attracting other businesses, even ecotourism, and then value-adding manufacturing industries. Energy is the key.</para>
<para>The next election will be a choice between a future made in Australia and a future made overseas. Instead of doubling down on the past and more of the same, which, frankly, I think is untenable—it means digging up and shipping stuff out and doubling down on coal and gas—we have an opportunity to value-add to our natural resources and our human capital in this country and turn Australia from the fossil fuel giant that it currently is to the sun king. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Those opposite may have a selective memory. Perhaps it may be because much of their election policy platform has been scrubbed from the internet. But this bill and all its promises sound very familiar, indeed. This bill and the rhetoric behind it churns out the same empty promises our manufacturers were given almost word for word by Labor before the last election. In fact, guess what the name of the policy was on the webpage? Yes, that's right—'A Future Made in Australia'. This government's latest promises made in this place over recent days offer cold comfort to our manufacturers, because they have been living through two years of Labor failures. Our hardworking manufacturers and the Australian public were given this exact sell just over two years ago. I've met with them and they are over it. They don't need more hollow promises; they need a break. The Prime Minister made all sorts of commitments at the last election, but his shallow promises to manufacturers are plain for all to see.</para>
<para>Here we are, 2½ years on, and they have spent $8 million running the National Reconstruction Fund. They just forgot to spend the money on actual manufacturing projects. This is what they promised at the 2022 election. The then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the first term of a Labor Government, when we reflect on what we have built, we'll see this … an economy that makes more things here at home, powered by cheap renewable energy.</para></quote>
<para>The exact opposite is true, with our manufacturers paying among the most expensive energy prices in the world. How can Labor promise a future made in Australia if they can't keep the lights on today?</para>
<para>Instead of a stronger economy with cheaper power, Australia faces a manufacturing insolvency crisis, with insolvencies tripling since Labor came to office. The Prime Minister also said of his National Reconstruction fund that it will 'rebuild Australia's manufacturing base', while the now Deputy PM prophesised:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Only Labor will ensure we come out of the pandemic stronger through bringing manufacturing home.</para></quote>
<para>Any reading of the economy will tell you otherwise. The NRF is still yet to spend a single cent on a single project. So, if that's the lived experience since they took office, how can we trust anything they say on this legislation?</para>
<para>Here they are, yet again, making commitments on manufacturing and saying to Australians, 'Trust us.' The government has had two years to demonstrate how they will rebuild manufacturing in Australia. Instead of delivering a proper economic plan, we see economic conditions continuing to deteriorate. Industry reports anaemic growth rates that are at or near their lowest levels in a decade. That clearly doesn't bother the members opposite. Are those opposite acknowledging or responding to a reported decline in new orders at the largest rate since the global financial crisis? No. Neither are they concerned about invoice defaults sitting at record highs. All we get is silence when we hear of manufacturers going bust.</para>
<para>Large institutions in our industry landscape like Qenos, Bosch or Alcoa have made difficult decisions as a result of this government's policy failures, with whole supply chain implications such as the announced closure of Sydney chemicals manufacturer Indorama. A furniture-making company in Dandenong, MadeCo, who recently entered administration, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we've weathered many storms, but unfortunately, some waves hit harder than others. The challenges brought on by the pandemic were tough enough, and the recent downturn in the residential cabinetry market, coupled with the closure of two major account clients has made our journey even more arduous …</para></quote>
<para>The building supply chain is very much feeling the pain, and manufacturer LUTUM going into voluntary administration is just another sign of that. It brings me no great pleasure, but I want to share the comments from the administrators:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is a manufacturing business exposed to the building and construction sector. It's got all the problems of manufacturing plus all the problems of a building supplier.</para></quote>
<para>And what are we told by this government? That they want to double down on their failed policies. They look at the past two years of inaction and failure and say, 'We want more of that.' Make no mistake: that is the choice that we are being provided here, and the track record of this mob fills no-one with confidence.</para>
<para>The Treasurer asserts that it would be 'an egregious breach of our generational responsibilities as a government if we didn't play this winning hand,' with reference to this bill. It's the sort of stuff you get from a bloke with a PhD in politics, not in economics. He loves to sell his policies; he just doesn't understand them. Well, let me give some free advice to this Treasurer from someone who has actually worked in a blue-collar job with hardworking men and women. Treasurer, what would be an egregious breach of your government's responsibility is not responding to the conditions that I've just outlined.</para>
<para>Manufacturers are struggling. Aussie families are struggling. Australians have endured 12 mortgage rate hikes under this government, with little to no support. Real wages for employees have dropped by nine per cent, and living standards have collapsed by eight per cent. Household savings are down by 10 per cent, all while the prices for food and groceries continue to rise and are up by more than 11 per cent. Over 116,000 Australian households are on electricity bill hardship payments, with 600 new households entering hardship plans each week—each week—to try to pay for their power prices. Because of this government's bungled energy policies, Aussie industry and households now pay at least 22 per cent more for their electricity, and this government's reckless approach to gas has led to drastic hikes in the price of gas, essential for most manufacturing operations. Under Labor, 90 per cent of our 24/7 baseload power will be forced out of the system. As manufacturers choose to shut down, unions have been given the green light to rise up. Emboldened by new, retrograde industrial relations laws, unions continue to be the kingmakers for those in the modern Labor Party. Is it any wonder that productivity has fallen by over five per cent under the Labor government? It's telling that the Treasurer did not mention productivity once in his budget. This is not the target of this bill. The government just keeps adding fuel to this inflationary fire, and this Future Made in Australia policy is proof positive of that.</para>
<para>There are also some key questions of this bill that show just how disingenuous this government really is. Their budget has already committed to a number of programs under this Future Made in Australia umbrella. Take the Hydrogen Headstart program, the Solar Sunshot program and even the PsiQuantum deal as examples. Knowing full well that these programs would be part of their Future Made in Australia package and knowing full well that this legislation would institute a new National Interest Framework and so-called independent sector assessments and community benefit principles, why did this government choose to power ahead without these three key pillars being applied to the aforementioned spends? It looks dodgy to me. They are failing their own standards before they even legislate them.</para>
<para>We also have serious questions about what this all means for the National Reconstruction Fund. What will happen to the independent investments by the National Reconstruction Fund if they're subject to the Future Made in Australia additional assessments? We're in a position whereby the department of industry will have a sector assessment via co-investment plans, as will the Treasury via a sector assessment, and so too the NRF Corporation with their investment considerations. That's three lots of assessment from three different entities. Have they even considered how that would work? How can the NRF be independent if government-initiated advice curtails or supersedes their investment decisions? Who is in charge here? Is it the Treasurer or is it the minister for industry? The problem for Australians is, if you ask them, they will tell you it's both, because even though those two don't like each other, they do share the same trademark arrogance. While I can appreciate why the government have removed ownership of this legislation from the inept and incompetent industry minister, the member for Chifley, this transfer to treasure Treasury poses more questions than answers.</para>
<para>It also remains unclear how exactly the new frameworks in this bill will interact with existing frameworks such as the National Reconstruction Fund priority areas or, indeed, ARENA's publicly listed priorities. In the Treasurer's second-reading speech he boldly claimed that this bill reflects a new economic orthodoxy, yet economists have come out in droves backing in the coalition's approach—stick to the economic fundamentals, the basics which our manufacturers demand. This is the whole problem with this Treasurer—while he's out there trying to remake capitalism, Australians just want him to do his job.</para>
<para>Labor have failed on the fundamentals. They failed to provide the skilled workers in the industries that need it. Anthony Albanese was elected on a simple promise—that he would skill more Australians. Yet, since Labor took office Australia has 85,000 fewer apprentices and trainees—a loss of one in five—and new training starts have dropped by 39 per cent. The last grandiose promise—the National Reconstruction Fund—was sold as a $15 billion fund to support manufacturers, but as manufacturers continue to go bust the fund, which has not committed a dollar to a single project, has instead topped itself up in this last budget with $18 million more for this new bureaucracy.</para>
<para>We also see the government's industry growth program—a $400 million program—spend a quarter of its budget on bureaucracy, not manufacturers. They recently announced five recipients—just five—no doubt worthy ones doing worthy things, but cold comfort to the thousands of manufacturers struggling to make ends meet and keep the lights on. Instead, this government will do what it always does: issue media releases that might sound good but that offer little practical support.</para>
<para>We see a clear example of how Labor actually thinks about manufacturing when we look at what they do, not what they say. Labor was caught out ripping off the 'Australian made' logo for political profit. Many in this House would be familiar with the iconic green triangle with the golden kangaroo—an instantly recognisable symbol and guarantee of Australian-made quality. It's highly trusted, with 89 per cent of Australians more likely to buy a product if they know it is Australian made, thanks to the strength of that branding. The logo is a registered trademark, and as such its use is strictly controlled. We uncovered a calculated campaign from Labor to use the 'Australian made' logo in party political material to spin its Future Made in Australia policy. Disgracefully, Labor tried to deliberately profit off the trusted 'Australian made' brand. That is how they see Australian manufacturing; as something to win them votes.</para>
<para>That is what this whole exercise is about—Labor trying to win an election, not build an economy. That is why the coalition opposes this bill. Labor do not have a proper plan to get the settings right for Australian manufacturers. We will continue to stand up to the false promises offered by this bad Labor government and instead offer a better way with a focus on getting the fundamentals right to get Australia back on track. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my great pleasure to speak about the Future Made in Australia Bill today, but I do want to pick up on a couple of things that the previous speaker and a couple of others have said. The member for Farrer mentioned the Alcoa Kwinana refinery closure, and I know the member for Hume in his speech last night mentioned the temporary suspension of production at BHP's Nickel West refinery. Both are in Kwinana, and both are in my electorate. I emphasise how shameful it is that there is absolutely no matter that the Liberals and the coalition will not politicise in this House. A lot of people have lost jobs at Alcoa and Nickel West. There's no doubt about it. The truth is that those operations have come to the place that they are in now—in care and maintenance—because they are over 50 years old. They have been the backbone of the Kwinana Industrial Area for a long time. They have employed many people. Indeed, my father was employed at the BP oil refinery, which, I might add, those opposite oversaw the closure of with barely a murmur. But what is irresponsible of those opposite is to come in here—and to go elsewhere—and to repeat untruths and misrepresentations about why Alcoa shut down and why Nickel West BHP is going into temporary closure. It is very clear—and those companies have made very clear in all their public statements—that there is no policy of the government that has any effect on these decisions. It is about their ageing facilities. So, if they could stop treating Australian workers in the disgraceful manner in which they do, that would be an entirely good thing.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, at its centrepiece, has emphasised the importance of critical minerals and rare earth elements and their processing here in Australia. A $17.6 billion production tax credit system will create more well-paid jobs, support local communities and build industries right here in Australia that will be critical for the future of the global economy. Underneath our feet and right across the country, we have all the critical minerals and rare earth elements the world needs for the energy transition. You can't have renewable technology like batteries, solar panels and wind turbines without them. There will not be a transition to net zero without the critical minerals of Australia. They are also vital for our defence and national security and for the defence and security of our partners and allies. As the world seeks to rapidly reduce its carbon emissions, the global demand will absolutely increase into the future. It would be a travesty if we didn't capitalise on this historic opportunity to grow this industry here in Australia for generations of prosperity to come.</para>
<para>We should try and do more than extracting critical minerals and exporting them to be refined overseas. Those opposite want an offshore critical minerals sector. This Albanese Labor government will not do that, because we believe in a future made in Australia. We should be processing the critical minerals here because we can do it. We need to create more value in Australia and add to our own supply chains and, importantly, those of our regional neighbours. Our traditional resources of coal, gas and iron ore will underpin the development of this new segment of the sector. All of them are needed, because the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector.</para>
<para>The production tax incentive is a game changer that will help achieve that. The investment is a no-risk approach. It is not a cash handout. If companies don't process critical minerals onshore, they don't receive a tax credit. Our critical minerals and rare earth industries will create those secure jobs of the future, but they need our support to get the industry off the ground. It is exposed to global markets. Global markets for critical minerals and rare earths are opaque, volatile and subject to manipulation. As we've seen in recent weeks, these price fluctuations are resulting in job losses, and that is what international market pressures are bringing to bear. But this government is committed to helping the sector weather these difficulties and grow for the future.</para>
<para>But what is standing in the way of this? Well, as always, it's those opposite—the Liberal and the National parties—holding this nation back, led by an opposition leader who's talking out of both sides of his mouth about the production tax incentive. The Leader of the Opposition says one thing in Western Australia and another when he's back here on the east coast. Here in Canberra the opposition leader opposes the production tax incentive outright and turns his back on Western Australia's resources sector. On the night the budget was released, the shadow Treasurer took mere minutes to oppose these credit systems. It was classified as 'welfare for billionaires'. Of course, on one of his rare trips to Western Australia, the opposition leader just last week was saying something else entirely. In Kalgoorlie the opposition leader said he was having respectful discussions with industry about support for critical minerals. But what would really help is if he actually said yes and supported production tax incentives that the industry itself has called for and calls for time and time again.</para>
<para>What we need to know from the opposition is, which is it? You have the shadow Treasurer on one hand saying, 'We don't support it,' and you have the Leader of the Opposition on the other hand having a think about it. You also have Senator Cash talking about some fantastical WA package but refusing to back in the shadow Treasurer and his staggering opposition to this policy that has the widespread support of industry. I look forward to the backflip we can expect from the shadow Treasurer in due course.</para>
<para>I want to talk a bit about what the opposition has proposed and the alternative to the government's proposition for production tax credits for critical minerals. The member for Farrer a minute ago said we need to get back to basics, and the coalition has claimed that all the government needs to do is go back to fundamentals and cut the red tape. So, let's look at their record on red tape. If there were a gold medal for approval delays, we might have propelled ourselves up to third on that ladder, on that Olympics table. If you combined it with the gold medal for backflips that I can expect to hear from the shadow Treasurer, we really would have done well—even better than our great Olympians have already done.</para>
<para>So, what is the truth on the approvals under the coalition, when they were in government? During their decade in power, approvals ground to a halt, because they cut the environment department's resourcing by 40 per cent. That meant there were no people to do the work to go through the approval process. So, that's their fault, and that is what their legacy is in the approvals space; that is their record. This government has spent $239 million in speeding up the environmental approval process. In our first budget we announced $117 million to clean up the mess and speed up approval times, and in our most recent budget we invested nearly $100 million to, again, speed up environmental approvals for renewable energy, transmission and critical minerals projects.</para>
<para>Their record—the record they say they want to use for getting back to basics, or getting back to fundamentals: across the previous Liberal-National government, only 46.6 per cent of decisions were made on time. Our record, under this Albanese Labor government, thanks to Labor's commitments and work on the approval processes: 84.3 decisions made on time. I'm much happier with that record than with their record over there. So, if this is all they've got—that they want to get back to basics on the approval process—well, it's not much, and it's certainly not enough to start the critical minerals industry in this country.</para>
<para>I might add that you cannot simply magic away, cannot just wave a wand at, the international market and geostrategic issues and the extraordinary pressure on this industry and think they will just disappear because you think it can. It goes to show just how out of touch the Liberals and Nationals are and how little they know about the resources sector in this country. I am staggered, time and time again, by their absolute ignorance and the way they take for granted the largesse of the resources industry, the support of them, and it has made them lazy in regard to policy in regard to the resources sector. Well, that is not what I do as the resources minister in this country.</para>
<para>I want to talk a bit about Western Australia, my home state, and the state that has vast deposits of critical minerals. I recommend that the shadow Treasurer might think to talk to some of the people who hold positions of leadership in Western Australia. He doesn't need to talk to the premier, Roger Cook, who of course supports a critical minerals strategy and the production tax credits. But he could speak to Libby Mettam, the leader of the Liberals in WA. She has said, 'We'll support this measure.' The leader of the WA Nationals and therefore the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, because of such underperformance of the Liberals, has said, 'It is essential not just for Western Australia and not just for Australia but for the Western world to pursue production tax incentives like this.' But the shadow Treasurer has never listened to anyone before.</para>
<para>We of course have other members in here from Western Australia. Their Liberal numbers are declining, and there's not been a Nationals WA member for a very long time. Maybe they should stand up for their own sectors, their own electorates, as well. I would hope that the members for Canning, Forrest, Durack and O'Connor are now speaking to the opposition leader and the shadow Treasurer to back the production tax incentive and support the sector that drives our state's economy and also drives their electorates' prosperity.</para>
<para>Instead of supporting Lynas, who are building a rare earths processing facility in Kalgoorlie in the electorate of O'Connor, the member for O'Connor has been distracted entirely by the Leader of the Opposition's nuclear sideshow. I see that the member for O'Connor is not on the speaking list for the Future Made in Australia Bill, which would greatly benefit his electorate. Perhaps he will find the time in his busy schedule to come in here and speak against the production tax incentives that the industry that fills his electorate supports.</para>
<para>Of course, there are other members in this House that have interests in the critical minerals sector in their electorates. The member for Durack will be speaking later and I look forward to her support for production tax credits. From New South Wales, the member for Parkes and the member for New England have rare earths and antimony in their respective electorates. They don't support it but they should, because it would create jobs in their electorates.</para>
<para>In Queensland, we have the member for Flynn, where there's a high-purity alumina refinery starting up that would benefit greatly from this production tax incentive. He was in here before saying no to this policy. I haven't heard from the member for Leichhardt but he has a tungsten deposit in his electorate that would be handy. Member for Capricornia, you have molybdenum, which you might be speaking about.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I haven't seen that, but I'm sure you'd want to help them out with the production tax credits.</para>
<para>We're looking forward to the contributions of the member to Gippsland and the member for Mallee. Of course, the member for Braddon will be speaking later too. He has the prospect of having a tungsten refinery in his electorate, and they will be depending on the production tax credit in order to move that along. If all of those members—and there may be some others—want to have a think about what the benefit is for industry right across the country, particularly for their electorates, they could come in here and try to get some support for it or, alternatively, call their leaders.</para>
<para>There are a few other people that have supported the production tax credits. Rob Scott from Wesfarmers has said the credits are a 'smart, targeted use of the tax system to solve big problems, leverage our competitive advantages and enhance Australia's prosperity.' Wesfarmers are of course building a lithium hydroxide plant. Janette Hewson from the Queensland Resources Council—a great supporter of Labor, but who we know is also a great supporter of the coalition—has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive, funding to progress common user facilities and $566 million to Geoscience Australia to develop new data are all important announcements that will benefit our critical minerals industry.</para></quote>
<para>And they are not the only ones. We have AMEC as well, who represent the vast majority of junior miners that are set to benefit from the critical minerals industry. If these three groups are saying it, maybe have a listen to them instead of listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, who have no idea about the resources sector. Sure, you can fly into a private party in a private jet and have a few champagnes. That's jolly good, but it doesn't show your understanding of the industry one whit. It doesn't help this country to progress. It just shows you are ignorant, if you rely on shadowy gifts to make sure that you can keep doing what you're doing, which is create poor policy with poor results, into the future.</para>
<para>Labor understands the resources sector. One of the reasons we have a great advantage in the resources sector is that we represent the workers in that sector. They are the ones that I know stand to benefit. This will benefit generations of workers, moreover, because the production tax incentives will create generations of work in new industries right across the country, so we can have a Future Made in Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I must say I was looking forward, genuinely, to hearing what the minister had to say. Normally when we have to sit and wait, it's a backbencher that repeats the talking points—you could hear them from anyone. I thought it would be interesting to see the minister spend 15 minutes talking about the Future Made in Australia and their plan for the resources industry. What was interesting was the time allocation. We heard around three, maybe four minutes—if we're generous—of talking about the government and then about 12 minutes of talking about the opposition. That in many ways sums up the Albanese Labor government. After spending 20 of the last 30 years in opposition, they're institutionalised to opposition. They continue to talk about us. The member for Parramatta is new. He's been lucky enough to be in government for two years; he's okay. I see him laughing over on the other side. I think he did work at a senior level in the former Labor government, so he's had a good run. But many others—the senior leaders, the Prime Minister and others—continue to talk about the opposition. The Minister for Resources could not spend 15 minutes outlining the positive plan that the Albanese Labor government has for the resources sector or for this Future Made in Australia policy. That says a lot.</para>
<para>This bill, like many others, follows a very typical Labor formula. I spoke about this when I spoke about the National Reconstruction Fund and also the Housing Australia Future Fund. This bill hasn't let me down. It's followed the four tried-and-true steps of the Albanese Labor government when it comes to be policy announcements. Step 1: you need the impressive-sounding name. 'Future Made in Australia' is very impressive; no-one would disagree with a name like that. Step 2: you need a lot of money over a long period of time, so it is outside of the forward estimates because then the Treasurer, as the member for Parramatta knows, can shift the budget a little bit because we report only on four years and, if we talk about 10 years, it sounds very impressive. With $22.7 billion—tick—we follow that. The member for Parramatta will appreciate step 3 as well. You need to include off-budget spending—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He agrees with me! You need to include off-budget spending because the beauty of including off-budget spending is that the Treasurer can stand up and talk about being economically responsible even though they've committed over $45 billion into off-budget spending since coming to government. The reason he can pretend to be economically responsible is in the name. It doesn't sit in the budget. But guess what. The Australian people, the taxpayers that have to repay that $45 billion in debt that adds to the structural deficit—the real structural deficit, not that pretend budget one—have to pay that money back. That $45 billion also drives inflation, as Michele Bullock, the RBA governor, knows. This bill includes the National Reconstruction Fund so—tick—we've got our off-budget spending.</para>
<para>The fourth point is a real lack of detail in the bill, which, as the Minister for Resources, who just spent four minutes talking about the bill, shows—even the Treasurer's speech, which I thought I would read again, had no detail about what was actually in the bill other than his spin and talking points he does so well.</para>
<para>The real danger to this bill is that this is giving the government the opportunity to pick winners. I want to talk about an actual example of what has happened already under the Future Made in Australia fund. There has been over $400 million—$970 million if you include the Queensland government investment—into quantum. That's part of the Future Made in Australia plan. But let's actually talk about PsiQuantum and the process that this government undertook. The first thing we should know about PsiQuantum is that they're actually based in Silicon Valley. The last time I checked, Silicon Valley is in the United States, not in Australia. The second thing we should know about PsiQuantum is that they've got some good supporters, Brookline Advisory is the lobbyist for PsiQuantum, on the record. The two principals of Brookline Advisory are a former chief of staff to the now Minister for Defence and Deputy Prime Minister and a former senior adviser to the Treasurer. Those connections came in handy.</para>
<para>Let's go through the timeline of PsiQuantum and what's happened around this process. This is an important process to understand because, if it's happened in quantum, it can happen with every other initiative under the Future Made in Australia brand. The Minister for Industry and Science met with PsiQuantum between 1 and 31 December 2022. On 25 January 2023, Minister Husic travelled to the PsiQuantum headquarters in Silicon Valley. On 26 April—this is very important and very convenient—PsiQuantum registered as a company in Australia based in Brisbane. Then, amazingly, by pure coincidence, on 3 May 2023, Minister Husic released the National Quantum Strategy. Lucky they registered just a week before that was announced! I wonder how they knew that was going to happen.</para>
<para>This is where it gets really murky. We now know, through Senate estimates and FOIs, that Postquantum was engaging with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources for months, doing due diligence. There was $7 million spent on external advice in early 2023, directly looking at Postquantum, from the department of industry. In August 2023, there was an EOI process sent out to Australia based quantum companies and 21 applied. When this EOI was sent out, many in the quantum industry were so concerned that the fix was in—that it was set up so that Postquantum, a US based company, could succeed—that they contacted me and raised concerns about the process. They also contacted the media. I spoke in the Federation Chamber in November 2023 about the irregularities in this process and the concerns industry had that Postquantum would win that tender process. To be very clear, no announcement had been made at that stage. In November 2023 I raised that. We now know, through FOIs and Senate estimates, that the department assessed the 21 proposals from the Australian quantum industry in a matter of weeks, compared to the $7 million of external advice and months and months of processes for the US based Postquantum. Then, what do we know? Lo and behold, shock-horror, in April 2024 Minister Husic and the government announced that Postquantum won the process. Wow! I must be Nostradamus to have been able to predict that in November. How amazing that that could happen! That process is now before the audit committee. There have been letters written by our side to the Auditor-General. Being on the audit committee, I am going to follow that process with interest. If this is how those opposite treat the Australian quantum industry, where does it leave us with any other industry?</para>
<para>Just when you might think it couldn't get any worse—this deal with Postquantum to build a computer in Brisbane—it did. Just in the last month the City of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, announced that they have agreed to a $500 million package of incentives with Postquantum to build a quantum computer in Chicago. Suddenly we're giving $900 million to this company to build it in Brisbane and the City of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, are giving them $500 million to build it in America. You would have thought, if we were going to spend that money, the minister would have at least done the due diligence to get a non-compete clause or some level of exclusivity for the Australian people. The question is: how does this happen? Is it because of the connections of Brookline Advisory, or has the minister just decided that he'll pick the winners?</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Saturday</inline><inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">aper</inline> recently had an article about Postquantum, including a quote from a department of industry insider. I'm going to repeat that quote, although I will change the last word because it is not parliamentary. This is a quote about the minister for industry: 'This is a minister who is a conviction politician who gets very excited and very enthusiastic about big ideas that could potentially change the nation, but the downside is that, when this same minister is presented with advice that goes against one of those big ideas, he really loses his mind.' This is a department insider saying that the minister for industry refuses to listen to advice from the department, and the government are telling us that this minister, along with his very good friend—as we know—the Treasurer, is going to sit down in a room and make these decisions. I'm very much looking forward to the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry and Science getting together over a cup of tea to make these decisions because it shows that they're not actually about delivering a future made in Australia for the Australian people.</para>
<para>I was just with Food and Agri Australia, a new group representing family owned food manufacturers in Australia. Every business needs productivity gains, which allow them to make more products at a cheaper price and bring their unit costs down. But there was not one word in the minister's speech about a future made in Australia about productivity. The minister has been missing on productivity for the last 2½ years. When he re-imagined the economy, he channelled his hero Paul Keating but didn't mention productivity. You need to drive productivity because it lifts opportunities for all industries. Food manufacturers, like those I met with today—those in the resources sector, those in agriculture, all across the country—are driving productivity. It makes a difference.</para>
<para>The other challenge when we talk about due diligence and proprietary is that, as I said, we already have $470 million of Australian taxpayer money tied up in PsiQuantum. I've gone through the farce of that process. We have already committed $2 billion to Hydrogen Headstart and $1 billion to Solar Sunshot, and we've seen the reports over the last few months that the wheels are already falling off. The government are refusing to put Hydrogen Headstart and Solar Sunshot through this process. They're saying we need this process moving forward, but not for the $3½ billion of taxpayer money we've already spent. That's the hypocrisy of those opposite. They'll talk about the importance of policy and due diligence but won't put it through what they've already spent. They know for a fact that the PsiQuantum deal won't stand up.</para>
<para>This isn't about delivering and competing on a global stage. The Prime Minister has talked about how the world has changed. Has he looked at the IRA in the US? He would understand that policy is technology agnostic. That actually backs nuclear energy as the only zero emissions baseload scalable technology that exists in the world. This policy selects one technology, renewables, and rules out others. In a world where we're going to see population growth in Australia—we've already seen the uptake of data centres that require significant energy—we're seeing new technologies like AI that require and consume a lot of energy. We're seeing the world and the government putting in policies, although those policies are already failing. We're seeing the world slowly move to EVs, which require more electricity. We have seen the government, those opposite, and the states try to electrify houses and take them off gas. So, at a time when we're pushing all these demands on the electricity system, we should be looking at all options, at nuclear, renewables and gas, to drive energy supply. As demand increases, if supply doesn't increase at the same time, prices will go up. That's economics 101.</para>
<para>As I said at the start, this Future Made in Australia policy ticks the four boxes of the Albanese Labor government playbook. It has an impressive sounding name. It has a lot of money over a long time. It's off-budget spending. There's a lack of detail in the bill.  And we know that 2½ years in, it ticks the fifth box. It's not actually going to deliver; it's going to make life harder for the Australian people, for Australian businesses, for those who want to have a go and for those who have already invested in business in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not surprisingly, I rise to support this bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. For the benefit of the members opposite who don't support it, I want to tell them and this place why I support this bill—why we support this bill. We support this bill because, at the heart of these policies, is something that they have lacked in spades. That is leadership. It's a type of leadership. I notice they're laughing on the other side there. The member for Casey, you shouldn't laugh, because what was sorely lacking during the years of coalition drift was leadership.</para>
<para>What kind of leadership are we talking about when it comes to this bill and these policies? It's about showing leadership in two key areas. The first is our transition to net zero, a massive national undertaking that is important not only for Australia's future but also across the globe. The second is our leadership in restarting, revitalising and reshaping our national industries and our manufacturing and, with that, our economic resilience because of the circumstances that we face in the 21st century. That requires leadership. These are big undertakings. In doing both, we on this side of the aisle are backing Australian manufacturing, backing Australian industry and backing Australian workers, unlike those across the aisle. When they were in power, they tried to kill Australian manufacturing. They almost very much did it. When they were in power, they sought to end what had been a long and storied history of Australian workers in Australian manufacturing making things in this country.</para>
<para>This bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, has three key components. Firstly we want to take a principled approach to drawing private investment into priority industries to again revitalise and reshape manufacturing in this country and our Australian industries. We're doing this by implementing the National Interest Framework, or the NIF. Under the NIF the government will be able to identify where Australia has a comparative advantage in the net zero transition and also where Australia needs to be resilient and self-sufficient. That goes to that point around our national interests and our national security as well. Secondly we're undertaking a robust sector assessment to improve our understanding of how government can best leverage private investment in areas of the economy aligned with the framework. This will help inform rigorous government decision-making. Thirdly we've defined a set of community benefits, helping us measure where the benefits of the Future Made in Australia are flowing. This ensures the Future Made in Australia plan is actually benefiting local communities, people on the ground, workers and businesses through the flow of that private investment.</para>
<para>The second bill, the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, amends two previous acts to practically implement this government's plan for explicit public investment at scale to attract private finance in sectors that have a comparative advantage in a net zero global economy or where the domestic capability could deliver economic resilience and supply chain security. Economic resilience and supply chain security are two fundamentally important objectives of this government given the circumstances we face globally. First, the second bill amends the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act to enable Export Finance Australia, the EFA, to make domestically focused investments under the National Interest Account in alignment with the National Interest Framework. Second, it amends the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act of 2011 to expand the role and functions of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, so it can support industries under the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund and other programs. Through this amendment we're continuing to ensure that ARENA has $6 billion in funding so that the agency can continue to provide industry and investors certainty to deliver sizeable, long-lasting projects. Third, this bill sets up arrangements for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund to accelerate innovative technology deployment in priority sectors and makes necessary adjustments to the governance arrangements of ARENA.</para>
<para>Pretty much all the members on the other side of this chamber have questioned the need for government intervention in renewables and also in the supply chain security. They may be doing that from an ideological perspective or they may be doing it because they're playing politics with these issues. But they'd have you believe that it's okay to just leave it all up to the private sector and the market and to let the capital flow where it may choose to go. That is the purist free-market ideological view.</para>
<para>I will say very clearly that we fundamentally disagree, and it's important to understand why. The truth is that capital doesn't just flow wherever it desires due to a free market. Capital flows to where there is innovation as well, when you incentivise that innovation. There are all sorts of interventions in the free market, many of which were made by the previous government, despite their ideological protestations. The point, though, is where and how you make those interventions and how you try to incentivise innovation so that capital can flow there.</para>
<para>Other countries understand that innovation brings with it the prospect of higher returns, and other countries are making themselves more and more attractive investment destinations. In a world competing for capital, that is what we are faced with today. Two whole years ago almost to this day, in another great country, the United States, the US Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, a $250 billion package focused on accelerating their transition to a net-zero economy. That is, in the land of the free, a massive energy transition that was undertaken. There's no free market there at all. You're seeing a massive investment by the US government and the US Congress to incentivise that innovation, and of course we need to do the same so that we can benefit as well and our workers and our industries can do what they do really well.</para>
<para>It's true that this country is blessed with raw materials. We're blessed with ample sun, wind and coastline. We have a choice about whether we continue to just rely on our historical success through digging up and mining or whether we also innovate, move forward and incentivise our innovation. That's important to note.</para>
<para>I turn to the second part of this, which is the security of global energy and supply chains. They've been under enormous pressure in recent years, as we know. Crisis after crisis overseas, including conflicts, has had an impact on these supply chains and on global energy prices. We know that, as well as causing a grave humanitarian crisis, Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has had far-reaching impacts on the global energy system, disrupting supply and demand patterns and fracturing longstanding trading relationships. We are committed to a national target of 82 per cent for renewable electricity generation by 2030, and the global demand for batteries is set to quadruple by 2030 as the world transitions to net zero. Even as we face the impacts of conflicts like the invasion of Ukraine and their impact on those supply chains, there is a move forward towards that transition because that is what is needed.</para>
<para>I ask those opposite: in the market for batteries, are Australians just going to keep buying batteries that are made elsewhere, or are we going to show leadership and nurture a highly innovative industry right here at home in Australia to capture part of that burgeoning market? That's a fundamental question. For us, the answer is firmly the latter, because of the opportunity. Our National Battery Strategy will set us up to meet this demand ourselves and build a world-leading battery-manufacturing industry in Australia.</para>
<para>Manufacturing batteries on shore will secure Australia's place in global battery supply chains, and why shouldn't we manufacture batteries? Despite the ideological views of those opposite or the political game-playing of the Greens political party, why shouldn't we be able to move into that manufacturing space when we have the people with the skills, we can incentivise the industry and we have the lithium, copper and other raw materials? Why shouldn't we be involved in that part of the supply chain as well? Our answer is: we should because it makes a big difference to the future of Australian workers, Australian manufacturing, our self-sufficiency and our self-reliance in a very uncertain world.</para>
<para>Importantly, it will make us more resilient to the further supply chain shocks that will inevitably occur. We don't have a crystal ball. We don't know where they will happen or what kinds of shocks they will be, but it's highly probable there will be more. We need that resilience. We need that foundation rebuilt. We need that manufacturing kickstarted again and revitalised. Whether the shocks come from—hopefully not—pandemics, war or simply belligerence amongst various countries as trade starts to become more and more difficult, it is important that we have economic resilience and self-sufficiency so that we can produce the things that we need going forward and be part of that global market. There is also the benefit of the massive creation of good, solid, stable, Australian jobs for generations of Australians.</para>
<para>The opposition, in 10 years, showed no leadership in realising that Australian industries, especially nascent industries, require incentives and business-friendly conditions. They had no vision. They had no foresight. They couldn't see beyond the tip of their own nose and the politics they played. The short-termism would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The so-called party of low taxes and free markets wants us to be a net importer. They want us to buy from the world but never sell it to it.</para>
<para>The coalition turned their backs on Australian workers, on Australian manufacturing and on the very industries that could have propelled us into a new era of economic prosperity. On one level, they sat idly by and allowed our manufacturing base to wither, but they also pushed it and tried to kill it themselves, proactively putting policies in place to destroy manufacturing in this country. There was neglect, there was complacency and there was the outright undermining of manufacturing. We know the stories about car manufacturing and how they tried to kill it, and they did end a big chunk of car manufacturing in this country. We were making Toyota Camrys when the Australian dollar was high and we were selling those quality products to places in the Middle East, but they still tried to kill it.</para>
<para>They didn't just kill the car manufacturing; they killed all of the industries. The small and medium-sized businesses around that ecosystem that provided different parts, the small engineering companies that employed Australians—they killed them off as well. All that skill, all that knowledge, all that technical expertise—they just threw it away. Some of these small and medium-sized companies tried to evolve. They've struggled to survive and do other things, and we want to support that. But I tell you what: the days of neglect, complacency and outright viciousness towards manufacturing are over. The Albanese government is committed to a vision of a future where Australian leads the world in clean manufacturing, where our industries are not just surviving but thriving and where our workers are at the heart of our national economic success.</para>
<para>Let's be clear: the Future Made in Australia bills aren't just about policy. They're about people. They're about those Australians who deserve the opportunity to work in those industries—to make things in this country again, to develop and to work to make sure that we are economically resilient, self-sufficient and self-reliant and that we are not exposed to the risks that are likely over the horizon. That's why I support these bills. It's about the men and women who get up every morning, put on their workboots and head out to those factories, workshops and plants across this country. We will support them with this policy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to be here debating legislation that's about the long-term future of the country. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 could, if drafted and implemented well, provide a framework for Australia's transition to a new industrial prosperity.</para>
<para>I speak regularly in this House about the need for government to think beyond the electoral cycle and to make long-term policy decisions that will benefit Australia. I've long urged the government to respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act and the plethora of international financial incentives and investments in clean technology. Future Made in Australia has the potential to be that response. But—there is often a 'but'—in order for Future Made in Australia to be successful, we need to know that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. This is essential if we want our communities to trust that the government is incentivising industries that are good for our long-term prosperity. I'll go into what I think those things need to look like, but, first, I want to say some things about why this is important and the role of industry policy generally.</para>
<para>We all know that Australia is lucky to have an abundance of resources, particularly in my home state of WA. Australia has built its wealth and prosperity off the back of the resources industry, from the discovery of coal in the 1790s to the gold rushes of the 1850s to discoveries of bauxite and nickel to the 1980s, when the enormous North-West Shelf project started exporting gas around the world. But the world has changed. The climate has changed, and the global economy has changed.</para>
<para>The US has committed $1 trillion to decarbonisation. China is responding by electrifying everything incredibly rapidly, spending $650 billion a year on cleantech, twice as much as Europe or the US. China is building as much hydro in a month as we build in a decade and is leading the world in installing renewables, responsible for 50 to 60 per cent of global battery installations, 70 per cent of wind turbines and 75 per cent of offshore wind. The race is on. Australia needs to pivot swiftly to capitalise on the resources that we have that can contribute to the new decarbonised global economy.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill identifies two streams under which funding can be allocated: the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. With Australia's copious deposits of critical minerals and solar and wind resources, we are primed to be competitive in the net zero global economy. But after 10 years wasted on climate wars and political headwinds, we haven't entered the race.</para>
<para>Should government interfere with industry? In my lifetime, we've seen an opening up of the global economy, built on an understanding that free trade raises living standards across the world and inoculates us against geopolitical conflict. It's been a clear goal and a macro trend. For decades, the prevailing economic orthodoxy has favoured a hands off approach that leaves industry development up to the free market. Here in Australia, we largely dig and ship. We export our natural resources, almost always in their raw state, to countries with more sophisticated economies. Our economic complexity sits at No. 93 globally, between Uganda and Pakistan. But recent events like COVID, supply chain instability caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the looming challenge of the green transition have changed the game. It turns out that the free market is not very good at dealing with long-term challenges and doesn't necessarily prevent conflict. In this context, countries all over the world are taking a more active role in industry policy, steering future economic development by supporting key industries.</para>
<para>Australia's long-term prosperity now relies not just on exploiting our current comparative advantages but on setting us up to have strong industries in the future. With our narrow industrial base, exports that are heavily exposed to other countries' industrial transitions and a weak R&D and innovation system, we can't afford to be left behind, relying on the economic orthodoxy of the last generation. We desperately need a response with scale, speed and ambition. This has the potential to be it.</para>
<para>With industry policy, so much rides on how it's done. My overall impression of Future Made in Australia is that it's more of a vibe than anything you can put your finger on. Is it an approach, a strategy, a fund, a framework, a collection of programs or a retrofitted explanation of past investments? It's hard to see how all the pieces fit together. It looks like decisions will be made by ARENA, the CEFC, the Treasurer and maybe others, with not a lot of clarity about whether they will be made in a coordinated way. There's no funding specifically allocated for investment in line with the Future Made in Australia approach—it's more of a general plan for when other opportunities come up. There is the National Interest Framework, which is both targeted at contributing to a net zero transition and infinitely broad in pursuing economic resilience and security. There is a requirement for conducting sector assessments under the framework, but there's no definition of 'sector' in the bill, so this could also be as narrow or broad as desired. A Future Made in Australia obviously can't constrain investment decisions of future governments, so perhaps it works as more of a statement of intent with some guardrails for investment decisions—except when we have to take it on faith that they applied, like for the investments already announced. Perhaps these things will become clearer with time, and I'm due to have a briefing soon with the Treasurer to gain a better understanding of how all these pieces fit together.</para>
<para>It seems like a good idea generally but its success will depend greatly on whether the government can be trusted to use it well, and trust is a scarce commodity. I asked, 'What would it take for Australians to trust the investment decisions made under this Future Made in Australia theme?' To build this trust, Australians will need to believe that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. I'll go through each of these in turn. The first point is about the right people. As the VCA rightly pointed out in their submission, any policy that involves the spending of taxpayer dollars should be expert-led, with expert advice provided to government as the starting point. We can only trust the decision-making if it's clear that experts are the heart of assessing which sectors and projects should be supported. I think the introduction of the National Interest Framework and requirement for sector assessments is a good first step, but I worry that in a worst-case scenario departments could be directed to produce a predetermined sector assessment at the whim of a minister. It's difficult to balance the need for expert advice with a desire for nimble and responsive decision-making, but in order to build trust in this process I think a transparent consultation with experts and stakeholders is necessary, and I'll be supporting an amendment to this effect. Tabling the sector assessments in parliament is a good first step to transparency, but I support the Productivity Commission's suggestion for the government to also make public the data and reasoning underlying each sector assessment.</para>
<para>Second is about the right decisions. It's hard to define in advance what the right decisions will be, but we know a few things about what they need to look like. Firstly, we cannot be using taxpayer funds to replace private sector funds. This will be a really tricky balance, because the government will want to back winners, but if government backs only the shore things then it's likely to be replacing private capital. We need to acknowledge that government should have a higher risk appetite than private capital. It needs to be crowding in private capital rather than crowding it out. It should be backing things that may not get up without support but that will ultimately be able to stand on their own two feet once established. It's about de-risking private capital, not replacing it. This is possible. Last year the CEFC mobilised four dollars of private capital for every dollar of public capital, and this is the approach we need to take.</para>
<para>While technology is changing so rapidly, especially around decarbonisation, this may involve placing some bets that don't work out but could be big wins if they do. For example, WA's iron ore deposits are largely haematite. The technology to use green energy to process haematite is not as progressed as the technology to use green energy to process magnetite, Australia's other type of iron ore, but if we can crack it, there are big wins. WA has huge deposits of haematite, and the best sun and wind and space for renewable energy projects. If we invest in solving this problem, we have the potential to punch well above our weight on decarbonisation, helping our trade partners with their decarbonisation challenge by sending them green iron instead of iron ore. There is some risk in this, but it's a risk worth taking. It's hard to see from the legislation what approach will be taken by the Treasurer and other relevant bodies to risk appetite. It's something we should be watching out for, ensuring that we're not replacing private capital but giving industries a leg up that makes a difference.</para>
<para>Secondly, we can reduce the chance of bad decisions being made by having robust guardrails and processes. I recognise that there's an inherent trade-off between strong processes and being able to act nimbly, but I have some concerns about how strong the current guardrails are. I'm very supportive of the net zero transformation stream, but I'm more concerned about the second stream: economic resilience and security. My concern is that this could be used to justify almost any investment. For national security reasons, we may want to be able to make batteries or solar panels or pharmaceuticals or anything so we have some domestic capabilities that we consider crucial. But, if we're paying more to manufacture something in Australia that will never be cost competitive, we need to be very explicit about the additional cost of this and why it's a good insurance policy. For this reason, I would like to see stronger guardrails on the economic resilience stream.</para>
<para>I'll be proposing some amendments about guardrails that I think will reduce the likelihood of bad decisions being made. Firstly, given that the world is rapidly changing, I'll be proposing an amendment that says that we need to reassess sectors every five years. Investments that make sense now may not make sense when we know more about which technologies are likely to dominate and what other countries are doing. I'd hope that this assessment is done continually by decision-makers, even if not formally, but having a formal requirement to reassess every five years will at least provide a backstop.</para>
<para>Another fairly fundamental problem is that there's no requirement in the legislation that an assessment be undertaken before Future Made in Australia support is given. The assessment process seems reasonable. Surely, if we're going to the trouble of laying out an assessment process, it would be more appropriate to use it for every project and not entirely at the discretion of the government. So I'll be proposing an amendment that prohibits Future Made in Australia support unless a sector assessment recommends the relevant sector for support. Observers should be able to assess how the government has come to a conclusion about our future comparative advantages and about which industries we're willing to subsidise for security reasons.</para>
<para>Lastly, for the right reasons, Australians need to believe that investment decisions are being made for the right reasons. Future Made in Australia cannot be used to fund politicians' pet projects. With a recent history of some pretty blatant pork-barrelling, Australian governments don't have a great reputation on this front, and trust is low. The government must be consistent in applying the National Interest Framework and communicating to stakeholders why and how decisions are being made.</para>
<para>So, in summary, we definitely need an industry policy to support the green transition and recognise the new global economic landscape. Future Made in Australia is a step in the right direction, even it's a bit messy and a bit vague, and I have concerns about whether this government can maintain trust in the decisions made under it. We have to do our best. We need greater clarity on what's in and out of Future Made in Australia and how all the different frameworks to support our energy transition fit together, including Future Made in Australia, ARENA, the National Reconstruction Fund, the CEFC and other relevant pieces.</para>
<para>Decisions need to be based on advice from experts with transparency about who has made them and why. The public needs to accept some risk so that public money is crowding in private money, not crowding it out. There need to be stronger guardrails around the economic resilience stream. Sectors should be reassessed at least every five years. No support should be given unless an assessment has been undertaken for the relevant sector and recommended it, and this cannot be used for pork-barrelling. If these issues can be addressed in some way, I think there's a chance that this could point us in the right direction towards future prosperity. It may not be perfect, but we cannot afford to delay.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We want Australia to be a country that makes more things here. It's that simple. It's not out of some rose-tinted nostalgia for the old days of Australian manufacturing. In reclaiming the idea of a country that makes things, there is the potential to reshape what we as a nation can achieve together, to reignite pride in our capacity to create and to reposition ourselves in the global marketplace. When we make things here in Australia, we reinvigorate our faith and confidence in Australian ideas and know-how. And that's why the Albanese Labor government will invest in our Future Made in Australia plan to bring new jobs and opportunities to communities in every part of our country. This is a plan that will bring so much opportunity, not just across the nation but to my regional electorate of Corangamite in Victoria. It will mean more jobs, more investment and more support for my amazing manufacturers, who are embracing new technologies and developing new innovative product solutions.</para>
<para>It is incumbent on all of us in this place to provide support to our smart, innovative manufacturers so they can flourish, develop commercially viable products for both the domestic and export markets and in turn become world leaders who we can all be proud of—like locally based Carbon Revolution. They have built a 600-strong workforce making cutting-edge carbon-fibre wheels for Ferrari and the aeronautical sector. Not long ago, Carbon Revolution was a startup in my electorate. Now, several years later, they are exporting innovative, high-demand products to the global marketplace.</para>
<para>We need to replicate this success, and that's why I stand to support these bills, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia Bill (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, which will make this plan a reality. These bills are built on three key components. Firstly, the National Interest Framework will ensure funding is delivered to projects that drive our nation, so we can become a renewable superpower while strengthening our local manufacturing industries. Secondly, sector assessments will identify which industries are best positioned to achieve these goals. And thirdly, community benefit principles will ensure our workers, our communities and our regions thrive as result of government investment.</para>
<para>These bills will be the catalyst to harnessing our natural advantages, be they wind, solar, hydrogen or our abundance of critical minerals. To drive these outcomes, the Future Made in Australia bills will combine these advantages in renewable energy with traditional strengths in resources and manufacturing to build new opportunities, including in critical minerals processing, green metal, clean energy technologies and low-carbon liquid fuels. Through this bill and our recent $24 billion budget investment, we're demonstrating our firm resolve to play a driving role in Australia's economic success and to move towards reaching our emissions reduction targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050.</para>
<para>The National Interest Framework will support government consideration of significant public investment that will in turn unlock private investment. It will also identify which sectors will make a significant contribution to emissions reduction at an efficient cost. To be aligned with the framework, a sector must fit within one of two key streams. Firstly, there's the net zero transformation stream, where industries have a sustained comparative advantage in a net zero global economy. Secondly, there's the economic resilience and security stream, where domestic capability is necessary for our national security and economic stability. These streams will come with their own guardrails to guide where and how investments are made. This will ensure every dollar invested is contributing to our long-term goals of sustainability, economic security and resilience.</para>
<para>For example, the bills make clear that ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, can only provide financial assistance that aligns with its core mission to increase the competitiveness and supply of renewable energy in Australia. This focus guarantees that public funds are used to accelerate our transition to a greener future. Let me be clear: these bills will not enable investment in coal and gas projects. I should also make clear for the benefit of those opposite that the Australian government has always played a bipartisan role in facilitating private investment, especially when it generates new workforces, greater productivity and innovative products for export.</para>
<para>That's just a fact. That's what Australians expects of their government—to show leadership, to invest in our natural advantages, to build capacity to manufacture for the global marketplace and to build know-how and rewarding jobs. I make this point about the Albanese government's approach to manufacturing because this approach stands in stark contrast to that of the former coalition government. It was, of course, the former coalition government that booted the car industry from our shores. It was their mismanagement that left thousands of hardworking Australians unemployed and entire regions forced to navigate their own way through a challenging transition. Across my electorate of Corangamite and throughout the region, one steeped in manufacturing history, this decision hit hard. Ford was synonymous with Geelong. Generations of local families built the vehicles that powered our nation. We hosted International Harvester, producing machinery that kept our farms and industries thriving. Our wool mills were once the lifeblood of the textile industry and our die casters and shipwrights contributed to the backbone of our national infrastructure.</para>
<para>From paper mills to countless support industries, my region has always been a hub of production and innovation. And, despite the challenges, we have taken our rich industrial heritage and turned it into the foundation for a renaissance in manufacturing and innovation. We know have companies like Austeng, FLAIM Systems and Formflow that are leading the charge in advanced manufacturing, renewable energy and cutting-edge research and development. I'm proud of my region's story. It is one of resilience and renewal. We have proven that, despite the coalition government's inaction, my community has the strength, ingenuity and determination to thrive once again.</para>
<para>A Future Made in Australia will back in this renaissance, playing its role in supporting manufacturers and building our regional renaissance. Just last week, I was joined by the Minister for Industry and Science. I would like to take this time to thank the minister for his role in making this plan possible. We visited Waurn Ponds to announce $1.7 million in funding for Li-S Energy to develop next-generation battery technologies. Li-S is based out of ManuFutures at Deakin University, a manufacturing hub focused on supporting the innovative start-ups that will be the future of my region. Since its establishment in 2018, ManuFutures has helped to create more than $1 billion in company value, incubated more than 17 advanced manufacturing start-ups, helped companies establish export markets in more than 35 countries, hosted 500 student placements and created more than 120 advanced manufacturing jobs. My region is also home to the Geelong Manufacturing Council. This peak body is excited about the Future Made in Australia initiative. They're keen for their manufacturers to leverage from this opportunity.</para>
<para>It's all about driving our economy forward. We're talking about green hydrogen and green steel and the opportunities they present to create more local jobs for more Australians. These aren't just buzzwords; they represent the future of industries where Australia can lead the world. Green hydrogen will power our factories and vehicles without polluting our skies, and green steel will be forged in our plants, meeting global demand while reducing our carbon footprint. These sectors will be at the forefront of a new sustainable economy that benefits all Australians as we transition to a net zero emissions future.</para>
<para>We recognise the immense opportunities that come with the global commitment to net zero and we know that to capitalise on these opportunities at the pace required government must take the lead. We cannot afford to wait. The time to act is now. We're already rolling out the $10 billion National Reconstruction Fund, the Net Zero Economy Authority and the $2 billion subsidy for hydrogen fuel announced last year. The Future Made in Australia plan will complement these measures, creating a bold, forward-looking economy that ensures the jobs and industries of tomorrow are made right here in Australia, by Australians for Australians.</para>
<para>We know that those industries of tomorrow will need to play a key role in our transition to renewables. Our Reliable Renewables plan, through the Capacity Investment Scheme, is unlocking 32 gigawatts of reliable renewables between now and 2030. We're transforming Australia's energy system to a reliable 82 per cent renewable grid, backed by storage gas and transmission. We've given the safeguard mechanism teeth, requiring net emission reduction from our 215 biggest emitters of five per cent a year, the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the cars off our roads by 2030.</para>
<para>We've released the National Electric Vehicle Strategy and have passed new-vehicle efficiency standards to give Australians more choice to drive cleaner, cheaper-to-run cars. We're rolling out $1.7 billion to the energy savings program, providing real financial support to households, businesses and local governments to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency to cut their bills and their emissions. And we're rolling out our $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund to upgrade our electricity grid at lowest cost.</para>
<para>We've legislated to bring the Climate Change Authority back to play a meaningful role in providing independent, science based climate change advice and have properly resourced it to play this vital role. We've put net zero in the objects or foundation principle of the CEFC and ARENA acts to ensure that they keep this goal front of mind when making all decisions. We're implementing a plan for better community engagement on transmission, including what more we can and should do to improve social licence.</para>
<para>We've agreed with all states and territories to finally put emissions reduction into the national energy objectives so our energy regulators have emissions reduction and to put the provision of affordable and reliable energy as their overarching goals. We've passed the electric vehicle discount to make EVs more affordable, and electric car sales have increased from around two per cent when we came to office to nine per cent today. We've funded and commenced the rollout of the Driving the Nation charging program, which will see fast chargers once every 150 kilometres, on average, on our highways.</para>
<para>We're improving the carbon credit market to ensure that it's delivering real emission reductions. We're developing the Guarantee of Origin scheme so that Australian renewable energy and other clean energy source providers are able to vouch for the credentials of their product when promoting it at home and abroad. And we're developing detailed sector plans to inform an ambitious but achievable 2035 emissions reduction target.</para>
<para>This is all important work, and it goes hand in hand with what these bills will deliver for our manufacturing industries across the nation. Most importantly, it will bring us closer to achieving a more prosperous, sustainable future—a future made in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 sounds, based on its title, like a bill that everyone should get behind. But, as with everything in life, the devil is in the detail. We were once a great manufacturer of products, from cars to washing machines, particularly my state of South Australia. Unfortunately, we have seen a precipitous decline in our manufacturing capacity over the years. And while manufacturing remains one of Australia's largest employers, employing 904,000 Australians and representing around six per cent of all employment, this could and should be much higher.</para>
<para>In parallel, our economic-complexity ranking has declined from 55th position in 1995 to 93rd in 2021, reflecting a reduction in diversification of exports along with the decline in manufacturing. We sometimes hear Australia referenced as a 'sandpit', and this is obvious when you look at our export basket. In 2021 our exports were overly weighted in iron ore and concentrates, at 29.49 per cent; coal, at 12.07 per cent; and petroleum gases, at just over nine per cent. Our export destinations further illustrate what narrow trade relationships we have, with 41 per cent of exports going to China, 11 per cent to Japan and almost eight per cent to South Korea. Of course, there is nothing wrong with exporting products. They have made Australia a very wealthy country. In fact, we are ranked as the ninth richest economy, with a GDP per capita of $60,444. However, because Australia isn't as complex, growth projections suggest that growth in Australia will rank in the bottom half of the countries globally, and that's a concern.</para>
<para>So, based on this information, if Australia is to remain competitive and maintain our wealth, we need to improve our economic complexity and rely less on primary exports. Will this bill correct the decline in manufacturing or improve our economic complexity? I don't believe so. There are a few critical elements that are important for business growth: minimal government red tape, cheap and reliable energy, and business conditions that foster growth. Currently, all of these require significant improvement.</para>
<para>We have ever-increasing burdens placed on business via unnecessary government imposts, our energy costs are among the most expensive in the world and we have a cost-of-living crisis that is hurting both consumer and business confidence. Added to this, governments have never demonstrated success at picking winners at either the sector or the individual business level, yet this bill seeks to invest more than $20 billion into sectors that the government is gambling on—in being the future. It also is hoping that its investment will attract greater business investment. Experience would suggest that it will attract businesses, but they are typically of the rent-seeking kind, where, once the money runs out, they are gone.</para>
<para>Very recent examples have piqued my concern following the commitment of $1 billion by the government to manufacture solar panels at a US company called PsiQuantum ahead of any investment safeguards ever being introduced into the parliament. There are several areas where government should be investing money. At present, there are nationwide shortages of medicines, pharmaceutical precursor chemicals and other medical supplies.</para>
<para>Surely, if we are interested in securing a manufacturing future and strengthening our sovereignty, we should in the first instance be looking at areas where we have identifiable need. We should also be investing in areas where we have a competitive advantage, not in solar panels, where we will never realistically compete with countries like China that have few environmental controls, poor or non-existent workplace laws and very cheap energy, to name just a few competitive differences.</para>
<para>This bill completely overlooks food manufacturing, and that is an obvious advantage and an obvious area for growth in Australia, particularly our regions. We are known as being clean and green when it comes to our food. Australian Food is incredibly well placed around the nation and around the world. However, there is nothing in this bill about food production. Knowing that we have a growing middle class just to the north of us, it makes absolute sense that, if we were looking at manufacturing as a nation, we would be focusing on food production.</para>
<para>My region produces some of the highest quality foods that can be found in the world, whether it's cheeses, cherries or apples—and don't forget wine. We have a huge amount of wine in Mayo. I have six wine regions alone. We have so many growers that want to be able to value-add to their product, and they can't do that at the moment. It's very, very difficult to set up the manufacturing plants—to turn those cherries that are wasted into cherry liqueur. It's very difficult. So that is where I would like to see the investment. We need to be looking at value-adding, and we need to be supporting those small to medium sized businesses to grow, rather than looking at products such as solar panels. We are just never going to compete with China on these products, and, if we think we are, we're lying to ourselves.</para>
<para>I have wondered if the sectors were chosen due to their alignment with unions, rather than with what is good for the country. We've all read with concern about the increasing flexing of union muscle following the election in 2022. Bolstering industry sectors with natural associations to the strongest of unions reads like a play out of the union playbook. I do not support this bill. I want to support a bill that is going to get behind Australian manufacturing, but it has to be smart. If this government is serious about improving our manufacturing capacity, it would address energy prices and reduce government red tape.</para>
<para>I support a manufacturing future in Australia, particularly food manufacturing. That is particularly good for the regions. The regions, I feel, have been completely overlooked in this. I support a future that harnesses our natural competitive advantages and one that incorporates the regions. This bill does none of these things.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is important legislation that establishes a vision for Australia and a road map for our future. It delivers on another Albanese government election commitment—to rebuild the Australian manufacturing sector. Manufacturing impacts on just about every other sector of the Australian economy and on Australian productivity.</para>
<para>As an island nation, it is so important for Australia, to the extent possible, to be self-sufficient in everyday life. It's important for our future security, particularly right now with so much uncertainty and insecurity throughout the world. The COVID pandemic was a wake-up call for all of us. We cannot continue to be complacent and reliant on overseas imports for our everyday needs and, even more importantly, for products and services that ensure and guarantee our security. Australia doesn't need to be at the mercy of overseas suppliers for most of what we need, because Australia is one of the few countries that could be largely self-sufficient. I accept that there may be some products that we will never be able to produce here, but generally we could be largely self-sufficient. We are indeed a lucky country. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources—farmland and wide-open spaces, and renewable energy resources such as wind and solar. We have innovative industries and world-leading research institutions. If you put all that together, it gives you opportunities that most other countries can only dream of. Indeed, other countries, with less of all of those things that matter, have done exceptionally well, and yet we in Australia seem to be wasting opportunities that others would never waste.</para>
<para>In the post World War II years Australia became a manufacturing powerhouse. There was almost nothing that this country wasn't building or manufacturing. In the late 1960s, when it was at its peak, manufacturing accounted for over 25 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product and nearly one-third of the Australian workforce. Today those figures have plummeted to somewhere between six and seven per cent—less than a quarter of what it used to be. It is true that, towards the end of the last century, cheap overseas labour saw much of Australian manufacturing relocate overseas. However, today automation and robotics in the manufacturing sector have largely diminished the 'cheap labour' argument. There are many other advanced economies which don't have cheap labour but which have successfully developed their manufacturing industries, or have retained them and kept them going, and are able to compete with the so-called cheap labour countries when it comes to manufacturing products. They are doing that right now, without all of the other things that Australia has, including the many natural resources that I referred to earlier.</para>
<para>With so many natural advantages, Australia can also re-establish its manufacturing sector, and many Australian industries are already doing that. I have visited many myself and I've seen what they are doing. I've also seen many emerging industries that are becoming innovative and making that their advantage over their overseas competitors. With the global energy transition underway, right now is an opportune time for Australia to reinvest and rebuild Australia's national capability and manufacturing base, and that is exactly what this legislation aims to do. The legislation is the beginning of that process—a process that will, of course, take some time. For those opposite who raise individual criticisms of the legislation: I have no doubt that, as this policy is being rolled out, there will be oversight and changes made along the way if those changes are deemed to be necessary.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia policy provides funding that not only will attract private investor funds that will, indeed, invest in nation-building projects—just as Australia saw in World War II—but will, in fact, set a direction that gives confidence to both the private sector and other governments, whether it's state or local governments, to do the same. That means investing in projects that not only produce goods and essential services but, importantly, provide critical research and development, as well as projects that go to the heart of creating skills and innovation.</para>
<para>In years gone by, it was the manufacturing sector that played a critical role in skilling up our workforce and in providing traineeships and apprenticeships. As the manufacturing sector declined, so did the opportunities to skill-up our workforce. Right now, one of the key contributing factors to the national housing crisis is the shortage of skills and locally-made building products, which have to be brought in from overseas. Both of these factors are not only driving up costs but causing construction delays—again, all because we allowed what we had to slowly slip away.</para>
<para>Today, energy costs have become critical to competitive manufacturing, and that's been echoed by others in the course of this debate. It is a fact: energy costs are one of the critical inputs into manufacturing. With Australia's abundance of wind and solar energy, government investment in renewable energy is not only necessary but in the national interest. We will have an advantage if we take that opportunity and deal with it now.</para>
<para>Japan and South Korea are two of the world's leading manufacturing countries. They have both built modern, strong economies on their manufacturing sector—that's effectively what sustains their economies. Both countries are investing in renewable or low-emissions energy, and the governments of both countries financially support their manufacturing sectors. Both of those countries also acknowledge Australia's renewable energy advantage and are looking to Australia for things like green hydrogen.</para>
<para>My argument is that, instead of us sending Japan and Korea green hydrogen—and we should if we can—we could also do what they want to do with the green hydrogen and use it to power our own industries here in Australia and provide the cheap energy that they are looking for in their own countries. It's like everything else that we do in this country and that we export. We export the raw products but never look at what those raw products are then used for or continue to manufacture those products. Indeed, Korea and Japan, which are truly world leaders in manufacturing, both have a vertical integration system in most of their industries. With most of their industries—whatever they make—they then look at vertical integration, in order to make the next product and the next product that flows from whatever it is that they are doing. Australia could be doing the same.</para>
<para>Rebuilding manufacturing is not just good for the big cities in this country; it is good for regional communities. Many regional communities have their own local industries that would benefit from having an industry sector that supports them, because if they needed a particular component there would be another manufacturer here in Australia that they could go to, rather than having to wait for something to come from overseas. It would be good for our balance of trade because we wouldn't have to buy in the products that we buy in today, many of which we were manufacturing in this country only 30 and 40 years ago. It would mean we wouldn't be having the trade deficits that we have. It would be good for employment opportunities. Manufacturing was one of those areas that provided a job for everyone, whether it was a university graduate or someone with very low-education skills. There was a job for everyone, and there is no reason why that would not be the case again. I want to see the 'made in Australia' label on more products both here in Australia and overseas. Quite frankly, if we can rebuild our manufacturing sector, then we will again be able to export the very products that we are making here, as we used to do.</para>
<para>In my own state of South Australia—and the member for Mayo touched on this—manufacturing became critical to the state's economy. Manufacturing was built up in South Australia in the post-World War II years. The premier at the time was Thomas Playford, a conservative premier. He saw the vision and the importance of manufacturing to the South Australian economy, and he invested government money in a whole range of areas which underpinned the manufacturing base that we had there, including the car industry with GMH. This became the biggest industry in South Australia in terms of GMH and all the automotive component suppliers that it underpinned as well. The coalition government, unlike a former conservative government, did the exact opposite and destroyed the car industry after almost 100 years in existence, leaving Australia the only advanced nation that today does not build cars.</para>
<para>That industry was also probably the single biggest contributor to research and development in this country. Again, we have lost all of that expertise. We have lost all of that innovation. Manufacturing is indeed the glue that pulls every other business sector together, and we have an opportunity in this country to rebuild our manufacturing base because of the natural resources and the skills of the people of this country, and we do have some incredibly skilful people who are innovative in every sense of the word. We can be proud of some of that innovation, which, unfortunately, all too often is then shipped offshore for processing and manufacture rather than being made here in Australia. It is time that we took credit for what we can do, used the resources we have, used the opportunities we have and started investing in ourselves. And that's exactly what this legislation will do.</para>
<para>This legislation will ultimately make a huge difference to the long-term prosperity of our country. It has always been Labor governments that have shown leadership and brought major reform to this country. This is reform that is now needed, and, as I said earlier on, it goes hand in glove with our need transition to a lower-emissions energy source. We have the advantages, we have the resources, and right now is the right time to do it. I say to members opposite: sure, you can pick holes in the legislation if you want, and I have no doubt that there will be issues here and there that you can pick on. But look at the big picture of where this legislation wants to take us. Rather than pick holes in it, ensure that, once the legislation and the processes are underway, we adhere to the direction that we want to go. If we need to be steered back on track for one reason or another, that's the time to come back to this parliament and say, 'This could have been done better,' or, 'That should have been done a different way,' rather than throwing out the whole direction that this legislation would take us in. Frankly, I think this will be the biggest reform this country will see for years to come if we're able to pull it together, and we can only do that with the support of everyone in this parliament. I commend the legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the 2024-25 Budget allocated $22.7 billion in taxpayer funds to the Future Made in Australia program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this is the second largest Budget measure announced in this term of Parliament; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) concerns have been raised by the Productivity Commission, the Grattan Institute, the Climate Council of Australia, BP Australia, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry that the Bill contains inadequate transparency measures to ensure Australians know how their money is being spent on Future Made in Australia supports;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that my Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024 provides the necessary framework to help ensure the Government's spending of taxpayer money to deliver the Future Made in Australia plan is transparent and fair; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to support my Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will call for a seconder at the end of your speech.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. These bills are the first pieces of legislation to implement the government's Future Made in Australia plan. According to the Prime Minister, this plan is all about 'seizing the opportunities of the move to renewable energy while becoming a country that makes things again'. What exactly does this mean, though, and how is the government going to achieve it?</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia Bill before us establishes the National Interest Framework, under which the government will decide whether or not to target public investment in renewable energy resources and manufacturing things like solar panels and batteries. When the government goes to apply the framework, it must determine if the investment fits into one of two streams: the Net Zero Transformation Stream or the Economic Resilience and Security Stream. The bill also allows the minister to direct Treasury to undertake a sector assessment of areas of the Australian economy to determine if they align with the National Interest Framework and if they should receive public investment to contribute to emissions reduction. Finally, the bill requires the government to apply community benefit principles when deciding whether to publicly invest.</para>
<para>The Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill allows Export Finance Australia to perform national security and net-zero functions. This bill also amends the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act, the ARENA Act, to expand the role and functions of ARENA so it can support industries under the Future Made in Australia fund. ARENA plays a critical role in increasing renewable energy supply in Australia, and I support this bill to continue supporting ARENA's valuable work.</para>
<para>I want to be clear. I support measures towards reaching our international obligations under the Paris Agreement and towards reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. We must focus on these goals if we are to have any hope of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Fighting for climate action is one of the tasks my constituents set for me when I was elected. Unlocking renewable energy resources and manufacturing is a vital piece of this action. It's why I support amendments that ensure that the government must take into account climate targets when they're awarding supports and that the Future Made in Australia plan is not used to support any new fossil fuel projects, including carbon capture and storage.</para>
<para>My community sent me here as their Independent to represent regional communities and to work towards strong action on climate change, but they also sent me here to be their champion for integrity in government decision-making and spending. And, while in principle I support the bill as a measure towards net zero, I do have deep concerns about integrity when it comes to this program. While I take the member for Makin's point about a big vision, it's our job as legislators to make sure that we look to the detail as well. It's critical to write law that works. We're talking about tens of billions of taxpayers' money, after all—$22.7 billion to be exact—and I want to make sure the public knows where the money is going.</para>
<para>Before I address my integrity concerns that I have—in particular with the Future Made in Australia Bill—I want to briefly touch on the community benefit principles contained in that bill. The bill lists broad community benefits that Future Made in Australia supports may provide. They are jobs, a skilled workforce, the vague phrase 'engaging collaboratively and achieving positive outcomes for local communities', strengthening domestic industrial capabilities, and tax affair compliance. Now, again I want to stress that I support, in principle, policy measures that create more jobs and skills and strengthen supply chains. Of course I do. But when the government talk about community benefit in relation to the net-zero transition, as they're doing with this bill, they've got to show communities much more than this.</para>
<para>I'm not just talking about jobs and skills and supply chains, which are really the only community benefits that this bill and, indeed, the government cite when they're defining 'benefit'. When I talk about community benefit, I'm referring to a definition that's way bolder than that—a definition that's much more ambitious for local regional communities such as those who I represent, not just name-checking them and thinking that's enough. I'm talking about things that tangibly benefit communities for years to come, benefits that leave a legacy that we can point to. When I talk to my constituents about how they define benefits for their communities, I hear people talking about better roads and public transport, affordable and quality health care, aged care, available and accessible child care, community, and infrastructure that's meaningful like decent housing, swimming pools, parks and proper investment in our tourism sites. I've spoken about this type of community benefit many times in this place. I've talked at length about how, unless and until communities start seeing this benefit, they'll continue to question what is in the net zero transition for regional Australia. In some cases, they will oppose renewable energy projects completely.</para>
<para>I cannot be clearer to the government on this point: you must support regional communities to realise and deliver tangible benefits when hosting large grid-scale wind farms, solar farms, batteries and transmission lines and when mining the resources and manufacturing the materials that build this infrastructure. I want to see that, when the government considers whether a potential public investment under the Future Made in Australia plan will provide community benefit, they will look beyond jobs, skills and supply chains. And I want the government to really look at community benefit, not just in Future Made in Australia plans but in all the other work they do with the net zero transmission, whether that be the capacity investment scheme or the net zero economy authority, to name a couple.</para>
<para>My biggest concern with the bill as drafted is that there is a giant question mark where the integrity and transparency measures should be. The taxpayer—the public—does not have a clear line of sight on where $22.7 billion of their money is going. In anybody's language, this is an enormous amount of money. In fact, according to the Parliamentary Library, it's the second-largest budget measure announced in this term of parliament, only after $50 billion was committed under the National Defence Strategy program.</para>
<para>In this bill, the government has created a large bucket of money, with only a vague outline of how that money could be spent. When it comes to the fine print, the guardrails, the rigour, the government tell us, 'Oh, this will come later, trust us.' Well, for such a large amount of money, I think it's more than reasonable that the public should know how it's being spent. Without an oversight and transparency framework, there is a risk that money will be awarded to industries or companies without merit because of lobbying efforts and because it will win votes in certain electorates or for other reasons that generally lack integrity in government decision-making. With that concern comes an erosion in public confidence in the Future Made in Australia plan itself. What a pity.</para>
<para>I'm not saying that the Future Made in Australia plan is an exercise in pork-barrelling. To be frank, we don't know that yet. But the government also hasn't shown us that they are putting integrity right up front when planning to spend this money. It seems rather strange to me that, in putting forward this legislation, with billions of dollars to be spent by this government, not just this government but governments into the future, we're left wondering. I don't like to be left wondering with legislation. A transparency and oversight framework would give the public the assurance that billions of dollars of their money is being spent responsibly and with integrity. It would prevent any pork-barrelling from occurring under this government or, indeed, any future governments.</para>
<para>I know I'm not alone in these concerns. In submissions received by the Senate inquiry recently examining the bill, multiple well-respected, credible organisations have raised similar issues. So let's go through them. The Productivity Commission recommended the data and reasoning underlying sector assessments be made public and the community benefit principles should be applied transparently. I agree. The Climate Council made similar recommendations: that sector assessments should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate. I agree. The Grattan Institute noted the parliamentary oversight of the Future Made in Australia plan would be improved if an annual breakdown of Future Made in Australia supports, including expenditure, were published. I agree. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the ACCI, wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it is essential that all project receiving funding are appropriately scrutinised, so that it delivers real returns to the economy and the Australian public.</para></quote>
<para>Importantly, the ACCI identified a lack of clear selection criteria for Future Made in Australia supports, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If clear assessment criteria are not provided, there is a real risk that FMA funds can be redirected for other purposes or to meet political objectives.</para></quote>
<para>Even BP Australia called for clear and transparent project selection criteria.</para>
<para>So there are clearly gaps in this bill if these organisations and companies, including companies who will surely seek to benefit from Future Made in Australia supports, identify shortfalls on key issues like selection criteria and transparency of funding and sector assessments. The solutions to fill these gaps are not hard to find. Earlier this year I introduced my Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill. It's a bill which provides a framework to ensure government spending of taxpayer money is done transparently by requiring clear selection criteria for grants and creating a parliamentary joint committee to oversee grant administration. The bill also provides additional oversight of government spending by setting out robust public reporting to parliament on administration, guidelines, selection criteria and approval processes for all Commonwealth grants programs. The bill now before us identifies grants as a major form of Future Made in Australia supports. If my end pork-barrelling bill were passed, concerns about the integrity of these Future Made in Australia grants would be alleviated.</para>
<para>Until the government supports my end pork-barrelling bill, however, there are some simple, straightforward amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill that would ease integrity concerns. My amendments to that end would require the minister to give unredacted sector assessments to the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit so that there is a fulsome parliamentary mechanism to ensure Future Made in Australia supports are given to sectors where it is appropriate to do so. They would require sector assessments to be tabled in parliament within seven sitting days of the minister receiving that assessment. Currently the bill says 30 sitting days. In practical terms this means that, if the minister were to receive a report on 2 December 2024, it would not be required to be tabled until around 25 June 2025, some 127 business days after the minister has received it. Obviously this is far too long for tabling a report in order to serve its transparency and accountability function. Finally my amendments would specify what should be included in Future Made in Australia's annual report. Currently under the bill it just says that the report should 'include a report on the operation of this act'. Again this is not nearly enough to achieve its intended transparency objective. My amendment would require annual reports to specify the total amount of Future Made in Australia supports, the recipient of these supports, the purpose of the support, the kind of support provided and the amount of support provided to and spent by that recipient.</para>
<para>I am yet to meet with the Treasurer to discuss the concerns I have with this bill and the amendments I'm proposing to improve it, but I'm really looking forward to having that discussion with him. We're getting it in the diary. I will be reserving my position on this bill until after I have that meeting with the Treasurer. In the meantime I want to emphasise to the government that, as we transition to a net zero economy, it is more important than ever to maintain the confidence of the people, including in this bill before us. This bill as currently drafted does not build enough trust. It does not do enough to promote integrity in government decision-making. It leaves way too much still to be determined. And when it comes to $22.7 billion in public funding, that is not good enough. Ensuring that the public can see where and how their money is spent through the measures I just outlined is one critical mechanism to achieving this confidence.</para>
<para>I expect the government to consider my amendments and other amendments to ensure the utmost integrity around this spending. If the Future Made in Australia plan is indeed going to 'seize the opportunities of the move to renewable energy' then the government has lots of work to do to shore up taxpayer confidence and trust in its plans to spend $22.7 billion of the very same taxpayers' money. If this government wants the public trust in this, a signature policy and a legacy, then it's got a lot of work to do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Future Made in Australia Bill and its omnibus amendments. One of the major policy commitments of the Albanese Labor opposition during the 2022 federal election was to drive a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>For too long Australian manufacturing and Australian industry have been in decline. The previous government failed to address this trend, and unfortunately even made it worse. Who can forget the former Treasurer Joe Hockey in this place daring Ford and Holden—the last remaining Australian car manufacturers—to leave? And that's exactly what they did. The former government left a policy vacuum in this space. They provided no incentives for industry development or value adding onshore.</para>
<para>That changed when the Albanese Labor government was elected because we know that a diverse economy is a strong economy and that there is so much unrealised potential for Australian industries to thrive.</para>
<para>Australian innovations have changed the world. As a country, we are incredibly good at developing ideas, but we are less good at commercialising them. Take photovoltaic solar panels, for instance. This is a homegrown product but not a homemade one. PV solar panels were invented at the University of New South Wales, but today 99 per cent of solar systems being installed on Aussie roofs are manufactured overseas. This is a technology pioneered here that Australians adopt more than any other nation in the world, yet we've let the huge economic benefits fall to other nations.</para>
<para>This is not a uniquely Australian problem. In the US the Inflation Reduction Act is seeking to incentivise growth in American solar manufacturing by up to 40 per cent. In two years, the act has driven the creation of 49 new solar manufacturing projects. Here, our government's one-billion-dollar Sunshot Solar program will support domestic production through investment in innovative manufacturing facilities across the PV supply chain. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said, there is a pressing economic need for a local solar industry and we have an opportunity to build a greater sovereign capability.</para>
<para>This bill will ensure that Australia maximises the economic and industrial benefits of the global transition to net zero. It will secure our place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. It will build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy. It will create secure, well-paid jobs and encourage and facilitate the private sector investment required to make Australia an indispensable part of the global net zero economy and become a renewable energy superpower. This is a long-term policy for the better future that this nation deserves.</para>
<para>Fundamentally, this bill is about taking advantage of both our comparative advantages in renewable energy and our traditional strengths in resources and manufacturing to build new opportunities such as critical minerals processing, green metals, clean energy technologies and low-carbon liquid fuels.</para>
<para>Australia is an exceptionally smart nation. Our minds lead the world, whether it be the invention of wi-fi, the Cochlear ear, the Hills Hoist or aircraft black boxes, we punch above our weight. Only on Monday, to mark the beginning of Science Week, the Minister for Industry and Science and I had the opportunity to visit a remarkable Canberra startup, Samsara Eco, which is based at the ANU here in my electorate. Founded by PhD candidates Vanessa Vongsouthi and Matt Spence, Samsara Eco is changing the way the world thinks about recycling. Globally, there are around 10 billion tonnes of plastic waste sitting in landfill or polluting the environment, but only nine per cent of this waste has been recyclable previously. Samsara Eco has developed an enzyme which when applied to polymers breaks them down to their original monomer form, which means that they have the capability for every plastic in the world to be able to be recycled using this technology and to be recycled infinitely. This is a real game changer. It is genuinely groundbreaking technology developed right here in Australia and right here in Canberra. Samsara Eco have already partnered with Woolworths, and this year, in partnership with lululemon, launched the first commercially available apparel made from the fully recycled polyester. Samsara Eco is an incredible example of what this nation's best and brightest can achieve.</para>
<para>This bill is about enabling more Australians to achieve their potential and help our nation become a renewable energy superpower, and we're doing this because our government has a vision for the nation—a vision for a better future. It is extremely disappointing to me that those opposite can't embrace this vision. Once again, for the sole purpose of saying no, they oppose good legislation that will make Australia better. They would prefer to keep Australia in the dark ages. Instead of embracing new technologies like renewables, they want to take Australia back to the past with the technology of the 1950s—nuclear. We have a different vision: a vision for the future, an ambitious vision—one in which Australian industries are able to reach their full potential, supported by a nation that not only cheers them on but provides the framework for their success.</para>
<para>This bill has three components. First, it embeds the government's National Interest Framework, which was announced at the budget, to help identify sectors where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage in the net-zero economy or an economic security imperative. Second, it establishes a robust sector assessment process to understand and remove barriers to private investment. Third, it establishes a set of community benefit principles that will make sure relevant Future Made in Australia investments create strong returns for local communities, workers and businesses.</para>
<para>We aren't alone in implementing a scheme like this. Whether it's the US Inflation Reduction Act or similar policies in the UK, Canada, Korea, Japan and others, the world is seeing the benefits of production tax credits like these, and we can either be left behind or pave our own way to a better future for our economy. The National Interest Framework will help to better align economic incentives with the national interest. Legislating this framework, as we are doing, will provide certainty to the investment community, which is critical to attracting private investment at scale.</para>
<para>This legislation codifies the two streams of the framework. The first is the Net Zero Transformation Stream, which covers sectors that could have a sustained comparative advantage in a net-zero global economy and where public investment is likely to be needed for the sector to make a significant contribution to emissions reduction at an efficient cost. The second is the Economic Resilience and Security Stream, which covers sectors where some level of domestic capability is a necessary or efficient way to deliver economic resilience and security and where the private sector will not deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support.</para>
<para>Sector assessments will be made at the direction of the Treasurer and conducted independently by the Treasury. They will assess whether an area of the economy is aligned with the National Interest Framework and will help inform how government can reduce barriers to investment in priority areas. These assessments are also required to be made public, which brings extra transparency and rigour to government decision-making.</para>
<para>The government wants to ensure public investment and the private investment it attracts flow to communities in ways that benefit local workers and businesses. That's why a set of community benefit principles will be applied to Future Made in Australia supports identified in this bill. Specifically, we want to ensure that investments promote safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions; that they develop more skilled and inclusive workforces, including by investing in training and skills development and broadening opportunities for workforce participation; that they engage collaboratively with and achieve positive outcomes for local communities, such as First Nations communities and communities directly affected by the transition to net zero; that they strengthen domestic industrial capabilities, including through stronger local supply chains; and that they demonstrate transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs, including benefits received under Future Made in Australia supports. These principles will be implemented on a program-by-program basis, and the government will consult on how they are best applied and the specific requirements.</para>
<para>The bill also establishes Future Made in Australia plans as a mechanism that can be used to implement the community benefit principles as required. Further details of what will be required to satisfy the requirements of these plans will be subject to consultation.</para>
<para>The bill enables the identification of Future Made in Australia supports, which are the government investments that the community-benefit principles apply to. The bill identifies two initial supports: the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, and certain investments referred to government for funding consideration under Export Finance Australia's expanded national interest account. Other Future Made in Australia supports can be added by the minister under the rules.</para>
<para>This is a bill filled to the brim with ambition for the future of this nation—a nation where our scientists are able to create new technologies, like Samsara Eco here in my electorate. Our innovators are able to commercialise those technologies, and our workforce manufactures the products right here in Australia, value-adding to our economy and helping our nation become the renewable energy superpower that we know we have the potential to be. We can be more than just a resources driven economy. Australia is a resilient, diverse, intelligent place. Our people are pioneering and world leading. And this is a government that has their back, creating policy that will support our industries and encourage them to invest in their businesses here in Australia.</para>
<para>This is a world-leading reform for a world-leading nation. As one of the previous speakers, the member for Makin, was saying, we are one of the only developed countries that no longer manufactures its own cars. This is just one example of where our manufacturing industry has been neglected, with costs that may not be immediately apparent. Having that industry here was also important for the skills of the workers who were manufacturing those cars, so that they would have those skills to apply to other things. As we build the manufacturing industry, it has flow-on effects for other industries and capabilities. As I've said, we are a nation that is full of ideas, and we want to back the people who have those ideas. We want to back them to take the potential that we have to build a strong economy so that the transition to net zero that we need to have will be a great opportunity for Australia and so that we will create new jobs—good jobs, well-paid jobs with good conditions and strong futures for Australians to feel secure in.</para>
<para>This is a world-leading reform. It is always Labor governments that have that sort of vision, that are looking to the future, that want to implement things that build a positive future. We're focusing on our children and our children's children and what their future will be as our economy takes on probably the greatest transition it will ever have to take in transitioning to net zero. And it's one that we know local businesses, scientists and workers are totally up for. We are a government that are backing them in on that.</para>
<para>I absolutely support a Future Made in Australia. That's why I'm supporting this bill today. It is a game changer for our manufacturing industry, at a time when we really need a government that believes in Australian ideas and gets behind them. This important bill is also designed to ensure transparency and to ensure appropriate decision-making around those two streams, the net zero economy and the capabilities that we need in order to ensure that we are investing in the industries and ideas that will benefit the most from that government investment. That's why I'm supporting this bill today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, which I have a lot of problems with, and the first is with the title. The title of this bill should be 'no future for made in Australia manufacturing under this Labor government'—none; absolutely none. And I'll go on to explain why that's the case and line up the facts that demonstrate it.</para>
<para>We should talk a little bit about what's on the line here. In this country, there are 909,100 Australians who are employed in manufacturing. Almost a million people rely on this sector—a million! And I can guarantee you that even this Labor government, as hard as it might try, can't subsidise every single one of those jobs. They cannot. For them to maintain their employment to continue to be able to pay their mortgages, they need businesses that are competitive to be able to employ them, and that is the fundamental problem right now.</para>
<para>I read through any number of the documents, including some of the consultation papers and everything else, and I thought: What is critical manufacturing right now? What is one of our biggest issues right now, and how would this bill apply to it? One of the biggest challenges right now is actually a shortfall in intravenous saline. It is a huge problem. There is not enough. It affects every single hospital, every GP practice and anyone that's doing theatre. I'm getting any number of complaints. Yet the application of this bill could not produce more saline manufacturing in this country—unless, of course, it's some wind turbine driven net zero fantasy that delivers more intravenous saline. It can't. This is a critical problem right now that this bill does absolutely nothing about—nothing. So all of those businesses that are out there who are trying to simply survive and keep those 909,000 Australians in a job can't do that, because this Labor government is killing their productivity, competitiveness and profitability, and no business that is not profitable can survive unless of course it has the largesse of this Labor government.</para>
<para>Here are the facts. There are 19,000 businesses that have become insolvent since this government came to power. It is the highest number since records commenced. Since this government came to power, 19,000 businesses have gone broke. That is because of the fundamentals of the economy, which are managed by this federal Labor government. The settings are completely wrong. They are wrong, and that is why the coalition will oppose this bill. We will oppose this bill because it will not deliver what this country needs. It is quite simple.</para>
<para>What else has happened that caused a lot of damage for those poor Australians who are out there trying to survive what is a cost-of-living crisis, whether they work in manufacturing or another industry? Their personal income taxes are up 20 per cent. So they have less of their own money to buy things that cost more, which are produced predominantly overseas, and nothing in this bill helps them. If you've got a mortgage, you're paying $35,000 more if it's a $750,000 average mortgage. But how does this bill help them? How does it help Australians? How does it provide more jobs? How does it make all businesses competitive? It simply doesn't.</para>
<para>The bill proposes changes to the way that ARENA operates. For those of us who have been in this place for quite some time, we know that the way Labor sets up these types of slush funds is to ensure that when there's a change of government—and there will be a change of government; there always is—it's almost impossible to get the money, the taxpayers' funds, returned. It's almost impossible to close them down regardless of what they are doing. We know the challenge we had with ARENA when the Abbott government first came in in 2013. It's still there. So ARENA is now going to do all sorts of things. It will move further into deployment and further into manufacturing. Why? Why do you need all of the other organisations, including things like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation? Why do they exist if you're now going to have ARENA doing this type of work? It is quite an incredible approach.</para>
<para>We keep hearing about the National Interest Framework. It's quite a convenient term. We have a treasurer who practically has never worked in industry. He has never run a business; that's absolutely definite. He has spent a lot of time here. He is currently running lots of businesses into the ground but is somehow going to use the National Interest Framework to make decisions. We've already seen some of the decisions which are proposed to be under this bill. The Solar Sunshot was one, manufacturing solar panels here in Australia. I saw the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen and everyone else making those announcements and how wonderful it was. But, in the last week or so, what have we seen? We've seen announcements from that company that they're actually standing down workers and sacking people. So, Solar Sunshot, under the National Interest Framework—which is apparently going to be achieved somehow—has already misfired. We've got fewer people working in that industry than before. That is where this federal Labor government is trying to drive this country.</para>
<para>Look at the things that are not included. Carbon capture and storage is not included. We hear the government rail against carbon capture and storage, but I'd suggest to every single one of them that they should go and read the CSIRO's report. They love the CSIRO and love reports from the CSIRO. The report says that the only way to achieve the carbon offsets that the federal Labor government wants to achieve is with CCS, because no other existing protocol can do it. It simply—physics, economics—can't deliver it.</para>
<para>We see nothing for uranium. We see nothing for nuclear, because they are opposed to it—unless, of course, it's a nuclear reactor being built in Britain, paid for by the taxpayer with some $4½ billion, to go into a submarine. It's apparently got nothing to do with nuclear, will go into Western Australia and be at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Stirling</inline>. Other than that, they are opposed to nuclear. Obviously, it's different, but it looks like the same sort of reactor to me.</para>
<para>On the community benefit principles, we heard from the independent member for Indi about her concerns about integrity. We've long held those concerns. The ability of the unions, particularly the CFMEU, to reach into this government and get an outcome that they want is quite incredible. We only have to look at the changes demanded in industrial relations, which have made all major employers in this country less productive already. We have seen incredible decisions about the CFMEU's behaviour. Yet, they only represent 12½ per cent of the workforce in this country. So, an organisation of all the unions put together—this is from the 2022 ABS report—that represents just 12½ per cent of the workforce in this country now has the overwhelming control of a slush fund like this. The reach of the unions into this government is absolutely extraordinary. This is not the way to build a strong economy that will drive future opportunities for every single Australia.</para>
<para>Who else disagrees? There are any number of individuals out there who don't agree with the proposal, including some of the Labor government's own appointments. The Productivity Commission says that a $1 billion commitment to make more solar panels in Australia under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's Future Made in Australia program should be retrospectively subjected to a tougher national interest framework. So, it's opposed by the government's own appointment who, as an aside, actually supports death taxes, which I'm confident the Australian people will not support.</para>
<para>We can't get production on critical saline, but, apparently, we can do green hydrogen. I went back and looked at the Prime Minister's press release about this bill. When it comes to hydrogen, the proposal is to provide a subsidy of $2 a kilo. Why is $2 a kilo important? If you look back to the former report from the then Chief Scientist, the numbers were very straightforward. It's Economics 101: practicality, profitability, deliverability, competitiveness and international competitiveness. Right now, you can't produce green hydrogen for less than about $8 a kilo. To be competitive, it has to be $2 a kilo. The only way to come close is to get the feedstock from petrochemicals, from gas and coal—particularly brown coal, because it's cheap and there's a lot of it. In fact, there was a prototype in Victoria in partnership with Japan which, I'm told, has now shut down, unfortunately. This Labor government says that these proposals are all okay because physics doesn't matter, economics doesn't matter, and energy transfer doesn't matter. 'We'll give you a $2-a-kilo subsidy and, somehow, you'll go from $8 to $2 and be competitive.' It is nonsense. In fact, even Twiggy Forrest, with Fortescue, has now scaled back.</para>
<para>I've been to any number of the presentations around green hydrogen, and it's always the same. The technical experts—these are real ones: chemical engineers, physicists, the people who know what they're doing—put a big thing up on the PowerPoint screen.</para>
<para>It says we need a technological breakthrough in every stage of the production cycle to be anywhere near competitive. I tell you that is not going to happen. It is not, and yet we have billions being thrown at what is a pipe dream. We heard from the Prime Minister today about Gladstone. We've heard from other speakers about the Gladstone proposal. That would be 2½ thousand square kilometres of solar panels. That is ludicrous. It will not happen. Can you imagine, in order to deliver what's proposed for Gladstone, that this federal Labor government will get an approval from the Minister for the Environment to level and clear 2½ thousand square kilometres of this country in order to put solar panels on it? It just won't happen. It is nonsense. So let's get back to things that matter, things that are practical, things that work.</para>
<para>The alternative is very straightforward: get back to the fundamentals. The fundamentals ensure that every single manufacturing business is competitive—not just the ones that are handpicked by the unions and the federal Labor government but all of them. That means you need affordable, reliable energy, whether that is electricity or gas. You need an available workforce that has the skills needed to deliver what your business needs. You need government to get out of your way. You need to cut red and green tape. And look at what this federal Labor government has done to businesses across this country already. We have already seen proposals around the safeguards mechanism, the green police, 'nature positive', industrial relations laws and pattern bargaining. None of them address productivity. All drive down the competitiveness of Australia's manufacturing sectors.</para>
<para>Fundamentally, we have to get energy prices down, in particular gas and in Victoria, because in some kind of miracle the Victorian state Labor government prohibited gas production, and now they have run out. The Bass Strait is in decline. That has been a known quantity for a long time. There are opportunities to get more out of the Bass Strait, but we're not seeing those approvals. We're not seeing onshore approvals. You cannot run gas from Gladstone all the way to Victoria and have it be competitive with the Bass Strait. You just cannot. That is physics and economics. And yet we see nothing here to support the gas sector and the manufacturing jobs in Victoria that need that affordable and reliable gas.</para>
<para>We see a new Minister for Skills and Training, who did an extraordinary job as the previous minister for immigration. We all know what's happened there. I'm not sure what the apprentices of Australia have done to the federal Labor government—I'm really not—but they've really upset them!</para>
<para>You need to ensure that every business can compete. As I said earlier, 19,000 of them have gone insolvent since this Labor government came into power. The numbers are clear. Business cannot survive under the policy settings of this government, and this bill does not help them. It will help handpicked, union selected, localised individual groups, and so far they've been complete misfires. Sunshot already looks like a failure; they're already firing people. PsiQuantum is a US company, and we've seen all sorts of reports about the selection process already. What is wrong with the Australian companies? They have been working for decades in Sydney at NICTA and other organisations to deliver quantum computing, and yet the priorities of this Labor government are simply wrong.</para>
<para>If you cannot drive down the fundamentals, all businesses go broke. If you cannot get your energy costs under control, all businesses go broke. If you cannot ensure that your labour force is paid well and can afford to live, they're not there either.</para>
<para>This bill is wrong. We will not be supporting it. The coalition will not support this madness. This is another bucket of union-run money which should not be delivered by the taxpayer. Once again it is up to the coalition to stand up to this madness being delivered by this Labor government. Unfortunately, it continues. I'm sure there will be a deal with the Greens, and they'll all sing kumbaya and do it anyway.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was quite something to listen to! The Albanese Labor government is committed to growing our economy, building new industries and creating new jobs. It's why the plan before this parliament for a future made in Australia is all about building Australia into a country that makes more things here, particularly in those areas where we have a natural advantage and where for security reasons—whether they are national security reasons such as security of supply—we cannot afford not to act.</para>
<para>It's an economic plan for a better future, making Australia wealthier, more secure and more independent. We'll put the talents of our people and our natural resources to work by making things here so that we are not simply shipping things overseas and importing them back as finished products. Companies are already using Australian minerals to manufacture solar panels to put on our roofs, but we could be doing more. Our Future Made in Australia plan is about giving a boost to projects like these and making sure that they have what they need to compete into the future.</para>
<para>More than anywhere in the world, Australia has the opportunity to create new jobs, new industries and new skills. But we need a government that is willing to step up to partner with the private sector to build a stronger economy made right here. That's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. A key pillar of the Future Made in Australia plan is the development of a low-carbon liquid fuel industry. This will help hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy haulage to reduce their emissions while creating new jobs and opportunities across the country, from growers to refineries. This policy will be a boost for regional Australia, creating new income streams for farmers and new job opportunities for workers.</para>
<para>Right now, much of our farmers' feedstock, including 60 per cent of our canola, exported to Europe is used to produce biofuels. We export 400 kilotonnes of tallow to Europe each and every single year for the same purpose. We should be doing this here and, through our Future Made in Australia plan, we will be.</para>
<para>Renewable fuels have an essential role to play in our net-zero journey and in creating new Australian industries, which is why I have championed their development ever since we came to government. One of my first speeches as minister of this portfolio back in July 2022 was focused on renewable fuels, particularly for the aviation sector. In that speech, I committed to establishing the Australian Jet Zero Council because I knew that not only was the development of a renewable fuels sector in Australia important; it was critical that we partnered with industry each and every step of the way. The Australian Jet Zero Council was established in June 2023, bringing together industry stakeholders to advise the government on the aviation industry's transition to net zero, including through the domestic production of biofuels. Through this work, we are now in a position to fast-track support for a low-carbon fossil fuel industry with an initial focus on sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel to support emissions reduction in the aviation and the heavy-vehicle, rail and maritime sectors, which are hard to abate. The technology does not exist at this stage or in the short, medium and, so far, long term to abate these sectors.</para>
<para>Through the Future Made in Australia plan, we will deliver funding for innovation, certification and processing. This includes, as we saw in the budget, $18.5 million to develop a certification scheme for low-carbon liquid fuels in the transport sector by expanding the Guarantee of Origin scheme. There's $1.5 million to undertake a regulatory impact analysis of the costs and benefits of introducing a mandate or other demand-side measures for low-carbon liquid fuels and we're investing over $1.7 billion over the next decade through the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund to support the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to commercialise net-zero innovations, including low-carbon liquid fuels. This is a plan that is supported by industry and our agricultural stakeholders. Bioenergy Australia says our policies:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… will create jobs in regional Australia, boost economic growth, bolster energy security, and future proof our tourism and transport industries.</para></quote>
<para>GrainCorp says federal budget funding for low-carbon fuels initiatives is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… playing into its strategy to become a major player the renewable fuels supply chain.</para></quote>
<para>The National Farmers Federation said it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… has long supported the development of the Australian bioenergy and Low Carbon Liquid Fuels (LCLF) industries, with Australian agriculture playing an important role in the supply chain …</para></quote>
<para>Industry knows that this is good policy and our farmers know that this is good policy as well.</para>
<para>Industry is already getting on with it. BP are working to establish a renewable fuels site in the Kwinana industrial area in Perth. GrainCorp, Ampol and IFM have already signed a memorandum of understanding to explore establishing Australia's own integrated renewable fuels industry. A feasibility assessment of a renewable fuels facility in Brisbane, including a supply of local homegrown feedstocks, will be an initial priority under the MOU.</para>
<para>You would think that growing new Australian jobs and industries would unite this place, but no. It's all opposed—as we've heard in speech after speech—by those opposite, who've confirmed that they won't be supporting the Future Made in Australia legislation. Of course we know that in their hearts the National Party does support a plan for low carbon liquid fuels because they know it is good for our farming community, good for the agriculture sector and good for regional communities. But they can't convince their coalition partners to stop saying no to every single initiative.</para>
<para>The shadow Treasurer dismissed this policy as 'billions for billionaires', demonstrating a failure to understand the importance of working with the private sector to build these new industries and to create more jobs at home. While we on this side of the House are supporting Australian industries, those opposite call support for Australian industries and our regional communities 'a wasted effort'. Through all of this, it appears the National Party is being silenced. In his second reading speech, the shadow Treasurer called the Future Made in Australia plan 'a plan for pork barrelling and wrong priorities'.</para>
<para>The shadow Treasurer should go to northern Queensland and tell that to our sugarcane growers and he should go to the Wheatbelt in WA and say that to our canola growers. He should tell that to the workers in the Kwinana industrial area in Perth and to the Lytton refinery in Brisbane. He could even go down and say it in Geelong, where they see this as very much part of the jobs for the future in their industry. But of course we know he won't do that because those opposite have got no interest in WA and they don't care about our regions. All they care about is saying no.</para>
<para>On this side of the House we care about the local jobs that the Future Made in Australia plan will bring and we care about manufacturing. The coalition simply wants to see all of these jobs stay overseas. While we're trying to build new industries here in Australia, we saw—of course—the coalition close them down. We know they killed the local car manufacturing industry here in Australia and that they are opposing production credits that will grow the critical minerals industry, which is something very, very important for Western Australia. They had a defence minister who said we couldn't 'build a canoe' and then they killed railcar manufacturing here in Australia as well. Now they have a shadow Treasurer who spent his pre-parliamentary career advocating against local jobs.</para>
<para>On this side we support Australian industries. We have local content rules in infrastructure and we have local job and training requirements. On their side they have a shadow Treasurer who calls support for Australian manufacturing 'a wasted effort'. That's what he said to the Minerals Council of Australia when he was advocating the scrapping of all local content policies and the closure of aluminium refining in Australia. Whilst we on this side of the House are working to deliver a future made in Australia, the coalition wants a future made overseas. Whilst we want more jobs, they want to close down the industries that regional communities have relied on for generations.</para>
<para>It's frankly time for the National Party, particularly when it comes to the pillar of low carbon liquid fuels, to decide where they stand and when they're going to stand up to their coalition partners. The Nationals need to decide whether they're going to stand with our farmers, our grain growers and our regional communities by supporting this legislation. We know that in their hearts they support it, but the test for the Nationals is whether they have the courage and influence over the coalition party room to stand up to the Liberals. Are they going to support new opportunities and new markets for our Australian farmers? Are they going to support new industries in our regional communities? Or are they, once again, just going to capitulate to the Liberal Party, who can't stop saying no for no's sake?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a critical time for our country. The decisions we make now will determine the economic future of generations to come. We're facing a crucial decade in which we must deal with the impact of climate change, cut climate pollution in line with the Paris Agreement, build the technology and manufacturing capacity to become a global leader in clean exports and create generations of prosperity for Australians. It's a time in which we must re-evaluate our industrial base, manufacturing capability and our economic sovereignty.</para>
<para>This Future Made in Australia legislation aims to establish policy frameworks to ensure that Australia has the sovereign capability necessary for our security interests and that we can develop the technologies necessary to decarbonise and to further industrialise our economy. The bill reflects a global trend towards increasing government interventionalism. In releasing a trillion dollars of clean energy funding, the US Inflation Reduction Act drew capital in from all around the world and made it harder to fund similar ventures in Australia. In the EU, Japan, China, South Korea and Canada, the heavy lifting of economic transition and industrial transformation is being facilitated and enabled by governments. The FMIA Act therefore reflects a significant shift in our national economic approach. It has caused some economists some alarm—with good reason.</para>
<para>There is an opportunity cost in subsidising manufacturing and industry. All industry assistance comes at a cost to those who are not supported. Let's face it, Australian governments' track records of picking winners are often poor. The Productivity Commission has raised concerns that attempts by government to reshape or diversify Australia's narrow trade and industrial structure, based as it is on primary commodity exports, could fail—that our government may sponsor businesses that will never be internationally competitive and will create long-term dependency on public support, at a significant net cost to the wider economy. These are valid concerns. The past decade has seen low productivity growth and business investment as well as narrowing of our economic foundations. Australia's ranking in the Harvard <inline font-style="italic">Atlas of Economic Complexity</inline>, which measures the diversity and knowledge intensity of a country's export mix, has now fallen to 93rd in the world, sandwiched uncomfortably between Pakistan and Uganda.</para>
<para>We're left very vulnerable to commodity price cycles. At the same time, much of our manufacturing has gone, resulting in the supply-chain issues that affect us every day. During the COVID pandemic we struggled to access PPE and toilet paper. Right now, today, our country has significant shortages of many medications. We've even got a shortage of intravenous saline. We have not been effective enough in diversifying supply, in stockpiling, in forging alternative arrangements or in switching technologies to minimise supply-chain disruptions.</para>
<para>Australia has been extraordinarily fortunate, with its endowment of some of the most valuable deposits of fossil fuels and minerals in the world. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and gas combined, but we have not reaped the full benefit from our coal or our gas. We weren't smart like Norway, which imposed a 76 per cent resource rent on excess profits from its fossil fuel industries. We were slow and maladaptive, like Britain, and we're paying the price for that now. Our government gets less from the PRRT than it makes from students from their HECS debts—from an incredibly lucrative but finite resource, the value of which is soon to fall globally.</para>
<para>The world is waking up to the fact that if we want to stop global warming we have to stop burning fossil fuels and we have to switch to renewables. The move to net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 is already, in countries like China, resulting in the biggest and fastest structural economic changes the industrial world has ever experienced. We can choose to join China and the US at the forefront of this new industrial revolution, or we can be left behind and suffer the consequences for decades. Within the next two decades the world will stop buying fossil fuels. Other countries will enforce carbon border adjustment mechanisms. If we're still basing our economy on fossil fuels at the time, it will tank. We have to plan for a future in which our gas is worthless and the massive plants that are still being approved by this government have become stranded assets.</para>
<para>Where we do have a comparative advantage is in the sun and the wind as well as in critical minerals, but we have to stop digging up those resources, dispatching them elsewhere and then paying top dollar for the refined product when it returns home from overseas. We have to focus on energy cost and security. And we have to harness the extraordinary potential of the sunniest continent in the world, which has an average offshore wind speed of eight metres per second. We have to stop exporting our minerals, and we have to transition to the onshore production and refining of ammonia, steel, iron, aluminium and critical minerals.</para>
<para>The potential scale of the energy transition is huge. The critical minerals industry alone has already created 13,463 direct jobs. The 100 projects currently in its development pipeline will create up to 21,365 ongoing jobs and another 42,743 construction industry jobs. That's far more than our gas industry does at this point. In the coming zero carbon world, we should cease exporting iron ore, metallurgical and thermal coal and gas because it will be cheaper to make green iron in Australia, using green hydrogen, produced from our sun, our wind and our water. It could be the cheapest green iron in the world. It could be the same for green aluminium, green fertiliser, green silicone and green aviation fuel.</para>
<para>Rather than exporting coal and gas for refining, we could export surplus renewable energy embedded within that suite of available products. Doing so would cement not only our economy but also our geostrategic position within the Asia-Pacific. But we have to be careful. An abundance of rare materials does not necessarily translate into an advantage as a manufacturer. Before we jump to subsidising complex products using Australian resources, we have to consider all the costs that are potentially involved: tax, logistics, labour, and the important materials required to establish those manufacturing processes. Then we have to consider whether it remains reasonable to assume that higher Australian costs can be outweighed by the cheaper energy and the access to the component materials that we have from here.</para>
<para>We also have to remember that red tape and industrial unrest stifle productivity. The Future Made in Australia initiative will be successful only if it helps manufacturing and industry with regulation. It decreases the complexity of planning and permitting; it improves state and federal collaboration on these projects, reviews uncompetitive tax arrangements and cuts red tape. Australian innovation, research and development are chronically underfunded relative to international benchmarks. There were 182 line items for innovation and research and development in the recent federal budget, and yet businesses are telling us they feel unsupported.</para>
<para>The challenge for us as a medium-sized, commodity-rich but remote democracy is to identify those industries in which we have a demonstrable current or future competitive advantage and determine how best to support them while minimising risks to the taxpayer. We have to determine where supply chain issues generally require local manufacturing and where other means might be more economical. We know that government interventions can distort markets, and the projects that deliver immediate political and employment benefits can often prove costly and ineffective over time. We also know they can be inflationary. And we know they can fall victim to cronyism and corruption. In such a context, it's appropriate that we start as we have, in those areas in which we do have a demonstrable advantage, clean energy and critical minerals. We should also remember those areas in which we have genuine sovereign risk and potential for development both of domestic surety and a significant export market.</para>
<para>In some ways, this act acts as an umbrella to better coordinate the suite of existing initiatives and funds that are aimed at the decarbonisation of our economy. These include the National Skills Agreement, the National Reconstruction Fund, the Net Zero Authority, Rewiring the Nation, ARENA, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, Export Finance Australia and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. These bodies are already operating under their own investment mandates and guidelines. We have to ask how this scheme is going to engage with those existing initiatives. Australia has a long tradition of excessive red tape and poor regulatory structures, and this bill provides insufficient detail regarding how this initiative is going to interact with those other bodies.</para>
<para>Any government assistance has to be based on independent, transparent, evidence based assessments of the risks associated with every proposal to ensure future value for money. There should be tight criteria specifying the outcomes to be achieved and mandated performance monitoring against those specified outcomes. While the National Interest Framework provides detailed criteria on the types of projects that might qualify for public support, it provides very little detail on the form and quantum of what that public support might look like. It includes minimum detail on the community benefit principles on which that support should be contingent.</para>
<para>The legislation should be more explicit. It should detail what forms of support will be offered, how that support will be provided and the timeframes for spending allocations within each sector. Providing that detail would increase policy certainty and investor confidence. We should expect non-performing projects that don't meet those commitments will be wound up and clarity around how performance will be assessed and oversight provided. And we need an annual breakdown of expenditure under the act and of the outcomes of that expenditure.</para>
<para>I have to say that early indicators cast some doubt on the government's preparedness to adhere to those standards. The government has, unfortunately, already started to pick winners. It's allotted $1 billion to solar panel supply chain manufacturing for production of solar panels in the Hunter Valley. This is an industry in which China is globally supreme and in which prices are falling very quickly. The government has also already committed $2 billion to green hydrogen and $4 billion for the mining and processing of critical minerals. Then it's kicked in $840 million for a rare earth company. If the Future Made in Australia investment goes solely to industries in which we lack a competitive advantage—industries like solar panels, wind farm components, batteries and electrolysers—we will waste money, we will waste the manpower which goes into those industries and we will waste the opportunity to do better elsewhere.</para>
<para>Even more concerning is the $470 million invested by this government in the quantum computing firm PsiQuantum. It seems that the decision to invest in PsiQuantum was made prior to the completion of an EOI process to which the company was not invited and in which it did not participate. There were 21 other companies engaged in that EOI process—an EOI process in which they had no chance of success, even though they had no knowledge of that. The processes around this fund allocation are utterly opaque. We deserve more transparency. We deserve tendering processes which don't involve NDAs. We deserve for ministerial diaries to be open. We deserve to receive FOIs which are not highly redacted. We deserve open calls for tenders, not calls mediated by lobbying firms and negotiations facilitated by former Labor staffers. We deserve processes which don't waste the time, money and effort of other companies and which don't cause a loss of trust both in the processes and in our government. If the Future Made in Australia investment goes solely to companies with special relationships with this government, we have a problem.</para>
<para>The amendment that I move here and further amendments which I will move in the consideration in detail stage of this legislation will address those concerns. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Future Made in Australia National Interest framework should be configured as the foundational reference for Australia's industry policy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) a robust governance structure for the framework must be ensured;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) clear criteria for national funding in the national interest should be established; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) there should be periodic, independent reviews to ensure that industry policy remains effective and relevant".</para></quote>
<para>Australia is fortunate to have another chance to get its policy settings right on this most existential challenge of climate change and energy. We do have an opportunity to establish the industries and jobs of the future in a global market which is estimated to be worth as much as $10 trillion by 2050. But we can't just be a lucky country. We have to be a clever country—adept, agile, transparent and honest. I ask the government to commit to the steps necessary to achieve that to restore faith in this bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Daniel</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the bill that is before us today, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. I come from a very proud manufacturing electorate, the electorate of Bendigo, which has been manufacturing for many decades. It is a place of much innovation, going back to the harvester. People remember and know the Sunshine Harvester dispute because that is how we have the living wage in this country, but that particular piece of farming equipment was first manufactured in my electorate before then being manufactured in Ballarat, and then its manufacture was moved to Sunshine in Melbourne. So manufacturing in my electorate goes back well over a century.</para>
<para>This bill and the Albanese Labor government's commitment to A Future Made in Australia have many in my electorate excited—excited by the opportunities it presents and excited by the commitment of this government to reinvest in and commit to manufacturing and to being a country that makes things again.</para>
<para>As those on my side of the House have recognised and said in their speeches on this bill, this particular bill looks to unlock private investment in future industries, bringing new jobs and opportunities to areas across our country—particularly to the regions. It's all about maximising economic and industrial benefits from the global transformation to net-zero, and securing Australia's place in an changing economic and strategic landscape, while at the same time helping to secure the supply chains that we have, ensuring that we will build a stronger, more diverse, more resilient economy that is powered by renewable energy, and creating more secure, well-paying jobs and a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>This bill recognises that our future growth prospects lie at the intersection of industry resources, skills and energy if we are to remain globally competitive. Specifically, what we want to see with a Future Made in Australia and the supports identified in this bill is: to promote safe and secure jobs that are well-paid and have good conditions. We want to develop a more skilled and inclusive workforce by including investment in training, skills and development and by broadening the opportunities for workforce participation. We want to see an engagement in collaboration to achieve positive outcomes with local communities such as First Nations communities—communities that are affected directly by the transition to net-zero. We want to see strengthened domestic industrial capabilities and stronger local supply chains. We know that supply chains are under pressure and continue to be under pressure, and it's not just in areas identified by other speakers like in medical supplies—it's in our housing industry and it's in our heavy metal manufacturing industry. Our supply chains continue to be under pressure with increasing fragmentation and global commendation.</para>
<para>New opportunities in clean energy industries will also be present into the future, and we need to be ready to tap into those and to make the best of those opportunities. Australia is ideally placed to benefit from the global transition that is under way, owing to our natural resources, our capabilities, our competitive advantages and the base of manufacturing that we already have in our trade partnerships. Key to unlocking those opportunities is being able to better facilitate private investment and to respond to those opportunities. This is something that comes up a lot in my electorate. Many manufacturers that I have met with over the last 10 years have raised their frustration—they've got a great idea, they want to expand, there's new equipment, they need to expand their plant to introduce new equipment, but they struggle to get access to capital. It comes up over and over again. That is why they are looking for the future opportunities, not just in this bill but in all of our commitments towards local manufacturing.</para>
<para>I want to take a moment to outline for the House the local manufacturing superstars that I have in my electorate. I want particularly to draw attention to Hofmann Engineering. Most people know them as being a Perth-based manufacturer—they are also in my electorate of Bendigo. They are going through their own transition. Some of their current work is for heavy metal manufacturing and refurbishment of machinery used in coalmining, and they acknowledge that it is an avenue of income for them. But they are diversifying and looking to tap into clean energy refurbishing and manufacturing.</para>
<para>On one of my visits to their facility, they were refurbishing a wind turbine. They are one of the only places in Australia that are able to ensure that our wind turbines are functioning at their full capacity. They spend a lot of time rebuilding and recalibrating poor product that has been imported from overseas and that doesn't really work well in the Australian climate. They're also well placed to take on new work with Snowy Hydro and the opportunities that present themselves in Tasmania with hydro energy. In my electorate of Bendigo, we have the capacity to refurbish, rebuild and manufacture the big gears, gearboxes and machines that are required for hydro energy.</para>
<para>Hofmann is already doing outstanding work for our state Labor government in terms of rail manufacturing, but they see an opportunity in renewable energy, and they are a company that we can all be proud of. Over one in 10 of their employees is an apprentice. They recruit locally, and everybody that you meet in the company acknowledges that it's a bit of that old school job for life. Once they start, they stay, and they enjoy their work environment. They are introducing new equipment, like robotic welders. It's still a fitter and turner who is using that machine, but it's a young fitter and turner who is applying their skills to the robot to do that work.</para>
<para>Another fantastic manufacturer in my electorate who's doing great things is Australian Turntables. Paul Chapman would never forgive me if I did not mention his company and the work that they are doing when we talk about a future made in Australia. They have a unique product. They manufacture big turntables. Whether it be for overseas, for restaurants, for car showrooms or for safer road access to construction sites and mines, they are involved in the manufacturing of turntables. There are also turntables that go into our arts precincts to ensure that orchestra pits and stages move effectively. But what's extraordinary about Turntables is the investment that they make in engineering and skills. Whilst they're a small company, they export a product all over the world. It's a family business, and Paul often talks about ingenuity and thinking forward. He talks about the next opportunity and is excited by the idea that we have a government that is committed to a future made in Australia and is a proud champion of the fact that you have to have that core industry to underpin an economy. As he recognises, and as we recognise, the world is changing. We want to tap into that opportunity.</para>
<para>Both Hofmann Engineering and Australian Turntables are members of the Bendigo Regional Manufacturing Group. I raise the Bendigo Regional Manufacturing Group because it is unique in the sense that it brings a diverse group of manufacturers together around what common interests they may have. For as long as I've been involved in the local community and engaged through my work as the local MP, they have been campaigning for cleaner, greener energy. They have been wanting to be part of the solution. They get that gas is a necessity at the moment, but they are really keen to see that transition and the establishment of a greener fuel to help power their businesses and their industries.</para>
<para>The Bendigo manufacturing community is a really good example of that fracturing that we have within manufacturing across Australia. We have heavy metal manufacturing, as I mentioned. I haven't even mentioned Thales, the home of the Bushmasters; I'd better do that. But we also have building supplies. We have food manufacturing. We have really diverse industries that I have to say have survived the worst of it. They've survived the decades of, I guess you could say, neglect from policymakers and lack of support for local manufacturing. They've survived the continuous challenges that come with the reduction of tariffs that we've had. They've survived all of that, and now they're hoping to thrive and hoping to really look at ways that they can build and grow. Any focus on manufacturing by our government will help regions like mine. It will help and encourage the growth of manufacturing, embedding in the government's National Interest Framework, which was announced in the budget—</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>107</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Each time we arrive here in Canberra and we come into question time, most particularly, we see a very self-satisfied prime minister and a very self-satisfied government over there, all backslapping and laughing and lecturing us in the opposition about how things are going so well and about our audacity in asking questions of this government. But the failures and endless lists of broken promises from this government have pushed so many Australians, many in my electorate as well, into a very dire situation.</para>
<para>Our economy is crumbling under the weight of Labor's ongoing poor decisions and mismanagement. Sadly, since the election, in just over two years, Australians are now poorer, because of this Labor government, than they were two years ago. Under Labor's watch and failed economic policies, we know inflation and interest rates will remain higher for longer. This is according to the Reserve Bank. More than two years into this disastrous government's term and after three terrible budgets, we're losing, as Australians, the economic battle on two fronts: persistent homegrown inflation and an economy that's quite frankly grinding to a halt. We see that every day with businesses going into administration and liquidation and now, increasingly, with people being made redundant and losing their jobs.</para>
<para>We find ourselves at the back of the pack when it comes to fighting inflation. Since December, Australia has been the only country to see an increase in inflation, which now exceeds 10 per cent, with interest rates also rising 12 times under Labor. Households are in recession, with no growth in GDP per capita for over a year—for five consecutive quarters. These are very grim economic times being faced by Australians, and sadly there are even further grim economic times ahead.</para>
<para>Labor's energy policies have been another absolute failure. Despite the Prime Minister promising on 97 occasions before the election that he would reduce household energy bills by $275 a year, Australians are now paying some of the highest energy prices in the world. Yesterday, in fact, I met with a building company who employs many hundreds of Australians who told me that their monthly energy bill in their manufacturing business, for building products, increased from $15,000 a month two years ago to $50,000 a month just two years later. The owner said to me, 'Michael, that increase just gets passed on into the products we sell, which ultimately get passed on to the Australians who buy those homes at the end.' In housing, one of my portfolio areas, we just see one disaster after another.</para>
<para>It's remarkable that, at a time when we're building fewer homes than we've built for over a decade, when we have fewer homes being approved to be built and when we have record lows of first home buyers—with all that happening—Labor has decided to run their secretive 'big Australia' policy, which we know they've wanted to do every time they have gotten into government. There have been more than a million new migrants in that two-year period of this government, yet we're building fewer homes than ever. There are a million more migrants and about 260,000 new homes. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that that is the cause of so many of the issues we're seeing in housing. Rents are up by 22 per cent. No wonder you go to an open inspection for a rental property in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane and sometimes you find lines around the block, because people are so desperate to find a home. A million new migrants when you're not building homes is one of the most irresponsible things that you can do as a government. An Australian government's primary role is to make the life of our citizens easier. This government is making Australians' lives harder, and they shouldn't come to Canberra laughing and giggling and patting each other on the back when they're inflicting so much pain on everyday Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bendigo Electorate: Schools, Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>During the winter recess, I had the opportunity to visit a number of my local schools. One of the real joys of this role is having the opportunity to visit our local schools. Whether it was for a book donation, a flag donation or a conversation to engage with older students—the five-sixes—it's always an opportunity to meet the young and future leaders. I had the opportunity to visit Harcourt Valley Primary School, Camp Hill Primary School, White Hills Primary School, St Therese's Primary School in Kennington and Eaglehawk Primary School.</para>
<para>What struck me the most was, regardless of whether it was a small school in Harcourt Valley, a large primary school like White Hills or a Catholic school in Kennington, when I had the discussion asking them, 'If you were Prime Minister, what would you focus on? What would be your priority?' the comments were the same. There was a strong focus on ending poverty, on ending homelessness and on making sure that everybody had a safe home. There was a real focus on the environment: getting plastics out of our ocean, protecting species, making sure that native species did not go extinct and acting on climate change. Naturally, being a regional electorate, roads do come up. A conversation about who is responsible for what roads always invites a chat about local, state and federal government.</para>
<para>What also came up was support and recognition of our First Nations Australians, our First Peoples, and recognition of a voice—listening to them, working with them. It made me proud to hear the pride in our young students when they talked about recognition and voice. But what also came up a lot when I spoke to these students was that they wanted people to be kinder to one another, to help each other out, to 'be good humans', as one student said to me.</para>
<para>I want to thank all the five-sixes I had the opportunity to meet with over the break. I thank them for their words, thank them for their ideas and thank them for allowing me to share them with this parliament.</para>
<para>Last week was Early Learning Matters Week, an opportunity for all of us to go out to our childcare centres, our early learning centres, to meet with educators, teachers and young people to learn more about what they do. I had the opportunity to attend Aspires in White Hills and Kennington to visit and meet with the teachers and educators and with the students and to have the opportunity to read books. At the Aspire centre at White Hills, the three-fours were able to read the book to me, it was that much of a favourite.</para>
<para>But what also happened last week in Early Learning Matters Week was the commitment from our government to give all workers in early childhood education a 15 per cent pay rise—a long overdue recognition of the value of their work. This pay rise will mean that people with a degree, with a diploma, who are currently on the award will finally be valued and paid a decent wage. I want to acknowledge the many members who have campaigned for this in the United Workers Union and, prior to that, United Voice, in the Big Steps campaign and acknowledge the way that they haven't just engaged with workers but have also brought their sector together. This truly is a partnership between industry, employers, unions, educators, teachers and the government to bring about wage equity for these members.</para>
<para>I want to give a shout-out to Lisa in my electorate, who works at Goodstart Strathfieldsaye, for her dedication. We bumped into each other on Friday morning and she couldn't believe it had happened. We had delivered. These workers, from December, will start to see the pay flow. What they know is that that will encourage educators and teachers back to the sector, people who loved their work but simply couldn't pay the bills because of the poverty wages. Attracting women back means that more rooms will open, meaning they can take more children next year. This is a good thing for our economy. This is a good thing particularly for women. This is a very good thing for young people in our electorate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Small Business</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As it's the home of the entrepreneurial spirit, Gold Coasters love to support small business. We have 78,000 registered businesses that employ over 383,500 locals. It's a huge number. This is the story for many regional towns and small cities across our great country. But small businesses and families are all hurting under this government. They're facing rising costs, higher interest rates and a decline in demand as a direct result of the Prime Minister's distracted and divided government, with all the wrong priorities.</para>
<para>Just last week, the RBA left interest rates on hold, putting further pressure on businesses and households amidst the Prime Minister's cost-of-living crisis. The RBA governor, Michele Bullock, was clear as to why when she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Wages are rising at a much faster rate than the RBA's inflation targets, so the only way interest rates can be reduced is an improvement in our appalling productivity.</para></quote>
<para>They were her words. We're seeing a decline in productivity due to increased government supported activities, and that, of course, means spending. We are seeing a decline in highly productive family businesses that are employers. Just think back. Not even 20 years ago, they contributed 40 per cent of the GDP and employed over 53 per cent of the private sector workforce. Now those small businesses account for just 33 per cent of our nation's GDP and provide only 42 per cent of the private sector workforce with a job. So they've shrunk. This rapid decline in small businesses is alarming and it's a disaster for my community on the Gold Coast. The proof is in the pudding. Businesses are going bust under Labor and it will unfortunately only get worse.</para>
<para>Business-to-business payment defaults are at a record high—69.4 per cent year on year—as businesses have struggle to pay their invoices. I'm just painting a picture here of what the landscape is like for small and family businesses. They're also struggling to pay their power bills, as all Australians are. They have risen by thousands and thousands of dollars. What is Labor's response to that? It's to give them $325 and spread it quarterly. It won't even touch the sides. It's a joke on small and family businesses.</para>
<para>According to research commissioned by Energy Consumers Australia and COSBOA, energy hardship and financial strains are hitting small businesses harder than COVID did! One in five businesses are struggling to pay their energy bills on time. That's 20 per cent. And nearly half are concerned about their ability to pay they're future energy bills. If the lights go out in a small and family business then everything stops. The world stops. There's energy, maintenance, staff, rent, interest rates staying higher for longer, debts spiralling out of control and no savings to draw down on. That's dried up as well. On top of that, there's falling revenues. It all spells disaster.</para>
<para>But the bad news doesn't stop there. The latest Business Risk Index paints a very grim picture for the future of many Australian businesses. It notes that one in 11 hospitality business are set to fail over the next year. There are tens of thousands of hospitality businesses on the Gold Coast, as anybody who has been up there on a holiday knows. And I encourage you all to come on up. Hospitality businesses are everywhere. One in 11 are set to fail across the country. The value of business orders is at a record low. The average value of invoices held by businesses halved over the year to June 2024. That's half the revenues. ASIC reported that 11,049 insolvencies occurred in the last financial year, and that's a 30 per cent increase on the previous financial year. What do we hear from this government? We hear crickets.</para>
<para>When we tried to increase the instant asset write-off, which the coalition government put in place, from $20,000 to $30,000 with an amendment to their legislation, what did Labor do? They refused, and they sent a very strong message to every single business owner in this country that they are not the party for you. They do not care about you and your family business. That was the message they sent when they did not agree to that amendment. These businesspeople provide 5.36 million jobs to Australians. I implore this government to take immediate action to assist small and family businesses across the country. Do it now!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Carers, Vocational Education and Training, Suncorp Super Netball Grand Final</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my pleasure to rise following that contribution from the shadow minister, the member for Moncrieff. I noticed that in her litany of complaints about this government she failed to mention pay rises, particularly in early education and child care, where she has responsibility. She failed to mention tax cuts, and she failed to mention lower fees for families for early education and child care, something that is absolutely critical for families in my electorate.</para>
<para>To see the shadow minister not mention those things in her litany is disappointing because, during the long months of the pandemic, I, along with colleagues, led by our now Prime Minister, spent hours planning for the reconstruction post the pandemic. A key part of the Australia we envisaged was one where wages would reflect the hard work and commitment of our workers. Nowhere was this more important than in the care economy, in aged care and in early education and child care. These workers were the heroes of the pandemic, working on the front lines to ensure looking after and caring for our youngest and oldest to support our communities. They showed up so that other essential workers could show up. They deserved more than our thanks. This week, the second part of this puzzle is complete, with early education and childcare educators announcing a 15 per cent pay rise for those workers, 10 per cent this year and five per cent next year. That is on top of three increases to the minimum wage and a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers in this country, something that I am incredibly proud of.</para>
<para>I am also incredibly proud of the fee-free TAFE that is allowing people to be trained in these sectors. Since its introduction under this government, 500,000 Australians have enrolled in fee-free TAFE. This means that we can attract, train and retain workforces in our care economy and know that they are being paid and valued not just by this government but by the community more broadly. In a community like mine, with some of the highest numbers of zero- to four-year-olds in the country, this is critical. And I have just one further point to make in that space: this is good news for the small and family businesses running early education and child care in my community.</para>
<para>On 3 August, at the Adelaide Entertainment Centre, we saw the Suncorp Super Netball Grand Final. The Adelaide Thunderbirds and the Melbourne Vixens put on a netball showcase. It was a grand final for the ages. A raucous Adelaide home crowd brought home the victorious Thunderbirds by two goals after an incredibly close and skilful display from both teams. The ball movement on display was scintillating. The shooting was incredibly accurate. The defensive strategies, deflections and intercepts saw the crowd on their feet in appreciation. I want to congratulate both teams. To victorious coach Tania Obst and captain Hannah Petty of the Adelaide Thunderbirds, for an incredible season and back-to-back flags, congratulations. To Vixens coaches Simone McKinnis and Di Honey and captain Kate Moloney, thank you for an amazingly successful season despite injury challenges along the way. You had an extraordinary achievement in that grand final. You really brought the game to the Adelaide Thunderbirds.</para>
<para>As a Victorian, it was sad that we didn't win, but netball was the winner. Our sport is ultimately the winner after that grand final. To watch the traditional rivalry between Victoria and South Australia play out on the netball court was a wonderful experience that I know was shared by families across the country as they tuned in. We had a wonderful Suncorp Super Netball season in 2024, with all the thrills and all the spills of great netball. It is the best league in the world, brought together by the best Australia has to offer, joined by international competitors from across the globe. It's an extraordinary league and they put on quite a show week in, week out, but that grand final was something to see. Secretly, I think Simone McKinnis may have found the way that the Diamonds will continue to have the edge over the Jamaicans in that match. I hope so. I wish all of those selected for the Diamonds tryouts for the squad good luck in their preparations. We'll be seeing the Diamonds on court in New Zealand and Australia before this year is out.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hughes Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak tonight about our healthcare system and, particularly, what has happened under this Albanese Labor government over the past two years in my electorate. At the heart of our health system in Australia is our local GP and the services provided at those local clinics. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis a Department of Health report has now revealed what Australians have known for two years: that the number of GPs bulk-billing is not increasing, as the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Prime Minister claim; and also, worryingly, that Australians are not visiting their doctor because of the cost. In my electorate of Hughes, in southern and south-western Sydney, this has been obvious for a while. We are seeing the declining wealth of Australians—caused by the cost-of-living crisis—now impacting their health.</para>
<para>Media reports today confirmed that a trip to the doctor now leaves Australians almost $45 out of pocket on average—that's up 5.5 per cent compared to a year ago. The number of visits to GPs has declined nationally by almost 2.5 million over the last year. This was on the department's own website. We know the importance of regular health checks and the integral role that a GP plays in monitoring the overall health of his or her patients. The reduction in the bulk-billing rates has been attributed yet again to cost-of-living pressures. I don't blame GPs for this at all. Dr Higgins, the President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, today said that costs are increasing for GPs because they are facing the same cost-of-living pressures as everyone else, and that most GPs are, in fact, small-business owners and so they are also suffering from the same cost-of-doing-business crisis that has afflicted all of the other small businesses across our country.</para>
<para>The people I speak to my local community have raised the declining rates of bulk-billing across my community for two years, and research has now confirmed that this is indeed the case. There are now only four practices that serve my electorate that still bulk-bill entirely—that is only 16 per cent. Of the remaining—more than 20 in total—around half have changed their way of billing over the past two years. Doctors within my local community blame the drop in GP visits on cost-of-living pressures. One of the GPs with whom I have met, Dr Rebekah Hoffman at Kirrawee Family Medical Practice, has said there are almost no bulk-billing or low-billing clinics in southern Sydney. She said she's seeing more families trying to squeeze multiple children or family members into a single appointment. She said, 'What I'm hearing from my patients is, it's the cost.'</para>
<para>I also want to draw attention now to a particular practice within my electorate that has been significantly disadvantaged by this government—Wattle Grove Family Medical Practice at Holsworthy. I'm glad to say I was conducted by Dr John Stanford, who is at that practice, and I thank Dr John for his advocacy. There are more than 3,100 patients that attend this practice, many of whom are veterans' families, as well as veterans. The predominant health issues dealt with by doctors at this practice are mental health and postnatal depression. Presently, there are three doctors and one registrar to serve this busy area. However, due to a bureaucratic departmental decision to reclassify Holsworthy as 'inner metropolitan' rather than its former classification as 'outer metropolitan', this practice is now going to lose its registrar this month, with a replacement highly unlikely. So this practice is going to lose 25 per cent of its doctors. What that will do to the wait times and what that will do to increasing the stress on already overworked GPs in this practice is devastating. It's also devastating to the people of Holsworthy, Wattle Grove, Voyager Point and Pleasure Point who attend this practice. I've written to the minister about this, but he refuses to do anything about it. I say that this is yet again another failure of this government on health for Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bangladesh, Australia-China Relationship, Team Simon Foundation for Cystic Fibrosis, Parramatta Historic Heritage</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are watching a humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh. The degradation of law and order has led to the violent persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. This includes Bangladeshi Hindus, which is the largest religious minority group and make up almost eight per cent of the population.</para>
<para>I spoke to members of my local Bangladeshi community in the aftermath of this crisis. Their stories have been deeply moving and their suffering is heart-wrenching. They've spent days praying that sleep is the only thing they will lose, and not their loved ones back home. Australia continues to call for peace in Bangladesh. We will continue to support a democratic and inclusive future for all Bangladeshis and we offer our deepest condolences to the family and friends of all those impacted by this terrible tragedy. I want to acknowledge the work and contributions of the Bangladeshi community in my electorate, in particular Prabir Maitra, Rizwan Chowdhury and Suman Saha.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has delivered major benefits for our Chinese-Australian community. From 1 July 2024 Australian citizens can travel to China without a visa for up to 15 days. With the mid-autumn festival fast approaching, this policy will help many in our community to reunite with their loved ones in China. Last year, Prime Minister Albanese marked the 50th anniversary of China-Australia relations with an historic visit to China. In June, the Prime Minister also welcomed Premier Li to Parliament House, marking the first visit by a Chinese premier in seven years. Under the Albanese Labor government, we have finally seen positive progress in the Australia-China relationship, delivering new benefits to our local Chinese community.</para>
<para>Last Friday I attended the Team Simon Foundation for Cystic Fibrosis gala. Cystic fibrosis is often called 'the invisible battle'. Every four days a baby is born with cystic fibrosis. The average lifespan of someone who has it is less than half the average lifespan, at just 34 years, and there is currently no cure. No parent wants to hear the words, 'Your child's results have come back. They have cystic fibrosis.' At just 17 months that was exactly what happened to Simon Bazouni's parents. Inspired by his battle, his parents founded the Team Simon Foundation for Cystic Fibrosis in 2018. Since then they have raised more than $570,000 and received more than 790 donations. I want to acknowledge the hard work of Harry, Teresa and Simon Bazouni for their efforts to find a cure for this terrible disease.</para>
<para>I want to recognise the incredible heritage of Parramatta. On the edge of Parramatta's shining CBD lies three of Australia's oldest and most significant buildings—Elizabeth Farm, Experiment Farm and Hambledon Cottage. These sites, which are within walking distance of each other, tell the story of Australia. Elizabeth Farm was where our Merino wool industry was born. Elizabeth Farm and Experiment Farm are the two oldest standing buildings in Australia. While this area has long been recognised for its historical importance, it's never been added to the National Heritage list. Last month, local heritage groups came together to submit a National Heritage application for this Parramatta heritage precinct. I want to thank all those who have supported this campaign, and look forward to working with you to continue our fight to recognise Parramatta's heritage and preserve these important sites.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 19 : 59</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 14 August 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>113</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wentworth Electorate: Surf Lifesaving</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was my great honour to recently attend the opening of Tamarama Surf Life Saving Club's new clubhouse. Since its inception in the 1900s, Tamarama has been a little club with a big heart which makes an even bigger contribution to our community. As well as running patrols, rescues and preventive action—incidentally, no life has been lost for over a hundred years—the club has a dedicated education team, competitions and programs, including first aid courses and the Bronze Medallion program. I'm also proud to say that the club has led the way on inclusivity. Its members are active participants in Lifesavers with Pride and the Rainbow Beaches program, and it has individual scholarships for members of the Aboriginal community and the migrant community. Truly this is a club where everyone belongs. Not only is their new clubhouse a stunning building with breathtaking views and even better facilities; it's also running on renewable energy.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank all of those who have helped make these renovations a possibility, including Waverley Council, the New South Wales government and the previous federal member. I'd like to congratulate in particular Matteo, the departing club president, as well as all the staff, volunteers and the wider Tamarama network. You have all worked tirelessly to achieve this wonderful milestone. I know it has taken a lot of energy and patience, and I hope that you continue to enjoy your beautiful new home. Thank you for everything you do for our community.</para>
<para>Over the last few weeks, it's also been my pleasure to see new life members of our surf lifesaving clubs across Wentworth being admitted. These people have made an enormous impact on our community, and it's due to their hard work and service that these clubs are the thriving community hubs they are today. I'd like to congratulate the following individuals for their years of service. From Bronte Surf Life Saving Club, there's Gaby Naher and Tony Coates. Gaby was inducted as their third female life member, and Tony has played a significant role in the club over many decades. From Bondi surf lifesaving club, there's Keiran Milne, who I saw inducted just the other weekend. Bondi has also announced a new scholarship for young members in memory of Louise Santos, an honorary life member who, sadly, passed away last year. North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club welcomed their current president, Steve 'Bluey' Larnach, as a life member, as well as two 70-year members, Max Sayer and Ken Hiscoe MBE. Clovelly Surf Life Saving Club welcomed Jan Featon as their first female life member. Jan was Clovelly's first female president, in the late 1990s, and she has been a huge influence on many women in the club today. From Tamarama Surf Life Saving club, there's Matteo Salval, the immediate past president; and Tom Bodger.</para>
<para>I'm so proud to represent these coastal communities and to work alongside our lifesaving clubs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bennelong Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker Archer, you probably don't know this, but the member for Bennelong is also referred to often as 'the member for pill hill'. It's a name born from the number of pharmaceutical and medtech businesses that are established in Bennelong at Macquarie Park. But I also think it reflects how our community is leading the way in embracing innovative medical technology and fostering a culture of health and wellbeing. I want to reflect on some of the great health-focused events that I've had the pleasure to take part in over the winter break.</para>
<para>A standout event was the Edwards Lifesciences Patient Experience day, which brought together 12 patients, their loved ones, patient organisations and 120 local employees. This gathering, the second largest of its kind globally for Edwards Lifesciences, highlighted the profound impact of medical technology on patients who have had to deal with heart health. The day was filled with inspiring stories, particularly that of the current New South Wales health secretary Susan Pearce. She shared her story, where she experienced a heart murmur and was saved because of this incredible technology. We also heard about Lachlan Drier's journey through multiple heart surgeries to become a success in rugby league. The dedication of everyone present to addressing structural heart disease was clearly evident, showcasing ongoing efforts to enhance their quality of life. Hearing their personal stories was truly moving.</para>
<para>Soon after that I had the privilege of hosting the Minister for Health and Aged Care in Bennelong, where we toured some of our local health providers. Our visit began at the Midway Family Pharmacy, a cornerstone of our community's health care. We explored their role in the National Immunisation Program, which has significantly boosted vaccination rates by providing free vaccines directly through pharmacies in our community. This initiative has improved accessibility but has also reduced pressure on our local GP clinics. We also talked about the government's cheaper-medicines policy and workforce issues within the sector. I thank Tau and her team for giving us a moment in their busy day to provide feedback.</para>
<para>Our discussions continued at the Maxim Street Health Hub, in West Ryde, where we engaged with local doctors on our plan to strengthen Medicare. The doctors shared valuable insights on the local implementation of these programs and the tangible benefits they observed. The tripling of the bulk-billing imitative and the rollout of our urgent care clinic were discussed. A constant theme emerged throughout our visit—that is, the importance of listening to those directly involved in healthcare delivery when trying to strengthen Medicare.</para>
<para>After 10 years of cuts to and neglect of our primary healthcare system, it is finally turning around. We're seeing green shoots in bulk-billing rates, and pharmacists are working towards a greater scope of practice. Both are good things. I thank the minister for his time and visit. I'm optimistic about the healthcare future we're helping create.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ryan Electorate: Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Internet and phone services are not just conveniences; they're vital lifelines. But here in Australia we're falling woefully short of the standards we should expect in a wealthy developed nation. It's a tragedy of the making of both major parties.</para>
<para>Ultimately, full-fibre broadband should have been rolled out smoothly, at world standard, by a publicly owned Telstra. But Labor's privatisation of Telstra in the nineties deprived the government of the logical vehicle to deliver a national broadband network. It also meant it had to negotiate with corporate behemoth Telstra to deliver the NBN, which effectively lead to enormous cost blowouts and time wasted. Meanwhile, Labor's addiction to corporatisation also led them to set up the NBN as a public corporation that had to turn a profit early in the rollout, causing higher prices for consumers and poorly targeted rollout priorities. Then, in 2013, the LNP government gutted the plan even further, slashed the funding and went for a multitechnology mix that included the infamous fibre-to-the-node and lesser-known hybrid fibre coaxial, or HFC—an old Foxtel network not remotely fit for purpose.</para>
<para>The NBN has recently launched a round of upgrades across the country, but I'm afraid it's a lottery for many. If your home is stuck with a HFC connection, you're out of luck on an upgrade. In The Gap and Michelton, both suburbs in my electorate of Ryan, most people have a HFC connection, and, in our recent survey about this, we discovered many people experience frequent dropouts—especially in the rain—and low speeds or completely unstable connections. The UK and the USA know HFC is bad news; that's why they're looking at upgrading their whole network to the international standard of fibre-to-the-premise.</para>
<para>My survey revealed the shocking state of our telecommunications in Ryan. Over 50 per cent of respondents reported slow, unreliable and overpriced mobile services. For home internet, it was even worse; more than 60 per cent said they had issues and a shocking 70 per cent reported frequent dropouts, with some suffering for days or even a week without resolution. It's incredibly frustrating for many residents in suburbs like Kenmore, Bellbowrie or The Gap, who have to take calls in the backyard because of poor reception. Meanwhile, everyday Australians struggle to get their work done, help their kids with homework or even just watch a movie.</para>
<para>Telecom CEOs are raking in millions. Telstra's Vicki Brady is on $5.25 million, Optus CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin is on over $5 million and NBN CEO Stephen Rue is on $3 million. Labor and the LNP's corporate model for crucial infrastructure and services has failed. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paris Olympic Games, Australian Institute of Sport</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Most of our Olympians are coming home today and with them 53 medals—the best medal tally for Australia since the Sydney games. There have been some remarkable stories over in Paris: 43-year-old basketballer Lauren Jackson earning her fifth Olympic medal; cyclist Matthew Glaetzer, who lost four bronze medal races in the past four Olympics, beating thyroid cancer and finally getting an Olympic medal in Paris; and Jessica Hull becoming the first Australian woman to claim a medal in the 1,500 metres and propelling the athletics team to its best result since Melbourne in 1956. We saw Saya Sakakibara, the BMX gold medal winner, with an emotional tribute to her brother Kai. We saw Jess Fox taking home six individual medals in total over her various games, and we've now seen her sister Noemie win in the first-ever kayak cross event. The Fox family in itself would have ranked 29th on the medal table. Kayak cross was supported by the Albanese government's $20 million Paris preparation fund. Then we had 14-year-old skateboarding gold medallist, Arisa Trew, who said to her parents that she would now like a pet duck.</para>
<para>For Canberrans, the success of Australia at the Olympics is a special source of pride because of the work that the Australian Institute of Sport has done in preparing so many of our Olympians. In gymnastics, we've seen the AIS campus play an instrumental role in preparing our team for the games. Team leader Georgia Godwin trained onsite before injury cruelled her Olympic chances. Shane Rose, an equestrian, used the AIS facilities in order to help recover over a transformative four-week period with the help of AIS physios and trainers. In canoeing, the men's K4 spent time in their boat, training in the AIS pool in Canberra, with Paddle Australia and the AIS biomechanics and engineers teaming up to help them find the crucial milliseconds during the race start they needed. Swimmer Bronte Campbell relocated to Canberra in her successful tilt to become a four-time Olympian, and the majority of Australian basketball players have come through the AIS as part of Basketball Australia's centre for excellence. It demonstrate why the Albanese government was right to invest $250 million in the AIS in Bruce, ensuring those facilities are fit for purpose, expanding accommodation and investing in Australia's success in the upcoming Los Angeles and Brisbane games.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Youth Crime</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've spoken many times in this place about the youth crime crisis that's been running through Queensland, and sadly Toowoomba has borne the brunt of that crisis far too often. We've seen car thefts. Burnt-out cars on the side of the road, particularly going out to Oakey, is a common sight. We've had break-ins across the country. There is no-one in the houses that I've doorknocked that can't point to the houses in their street that have been affected by this. We've seen, sadly, far too many of these break-ins escalating to assaults. Sadly, for many people, one of these assaults, committed by youth criminals, resulted in the death, in broad daylight, of Robert Brown.</para>
<para>While youth crime has been plaguing our city, there's something about the desecration of the Drayton and Toowoomba Cemetery that happened over the weekend that has really hit people, because it was the most senseless act that young criminals could have perpetrated in a community. It's just shocking. This is one of Queensland's oldest cemeteries. It keeps the records of Toowoomba's forefathers, the people who came here and created this wonderful city of ours. Over a hundred graves and memorials, including war graves, were knocked over and destroyed, causing an estimated half-a-million dollars worth of damage. What hurts is that, already, two days after this, we have found out that there'll be no court appearance for the three young people who committed these acts, no community service, just a caution.</para>
<para>There is absolutely no deterrent in Queensland for young people committing these horrific crimes, and this does not meet community standards. This is just not good enough. The message from this intolerable act is that you can do it and get away with it. How did we get here? We got here because Queensland Labor watered down the Youth Justice Act. That has been the cause of so much harm and hurt in communities. How are we going to fix it? Labor have had absolutely no response to this. They haven't even responded to this. The LNP have been very clear with their Adult Crime, Adult Time policy. They will address it, and I commend the local member David Janetzki. But there was the Safer Communities Fund, which our side of the House brought out, and it would have been helpful in a situation like this. I'd love to be able to offer it to the Toowoomba council right now. This was a fund going directly towards CCTV, towards gates, towards making communities safer. Why the government knocked that back I have absolutely no idea. It's an absolute disgrace. I should be able to reach out and offer that to my community at this time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently visited Goodstart Canning Vale in my electorate of Tangney. The team of early learning professionals there strive to provide the best care for every child. This early childhood education and care setting also reflects the diversity of Tangney. Nineteen different languages are spoken at the centre, and the educators work hard to promote cultural awareness and understanding. In speaking some of the many languages of Tangney all under one roof, the educators promote multiculturalism and harmony daily. The team of 28 early childhood educators have formed relationships with local businesses and community organisations to ensure that they are inclusive to all families—for example, using a local butcher to provide halal meals. They are welcoming to all families, and they shape and change lives.</para>
<para>Early childhood educators have one of the most important jobs. The Albanese Labor government's 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators will make a real difference to all the highly skilled professionals who care for, nurture and educate our youngest Australians. This wage increase will phase in over two years—a 10 per cent increase from December 2024 and a further five per cent increase from December 2025. A typical ECEC educator who is paid at award rate will receive a pay rise of at least $103 per week, and it will increase to $155 per week in 2025.</para>
<para>At Goodstart Canning Vale, I saw the relationship created between the educators and every child, and I saw the trust between the families and the educators. This relationship can be seen in early childhood settings across all of Tangney. I see it as a grandfather. My grandson has grown up so much since he started attending early childhood education and care. He was only one year old then. Now he is 1½ years old. He has become more cheerful, more confident, more active and, of course, more cheeky! As a proud grandfather, I am impressed by everything he has learned since he started his early childhood education. This is in large part due to all the hard work all the incredible educators have done.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare policies have helped many families in Tangney with increased subsidies. These changes have made early childhood education and care more affordable, and now this long-deserved wage increase will help all the early childhood educators in the nation. Thank you to all the early childhood educators at Goodstart Canning Vale for showing me the important work that you do. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Red Cross, Gorrie, Mr John</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate the Australian Red Cross on their 110 years of service. In my community, the Alstonville and Wardell Red Cross branches are foundation branches. The Alstonville Red Cross branch have supported local and overseas projects throughout their time. I'd like to thank and acknowledge all members of the Alstonville branch, including current president Colleen Shulze, secretary Carole Laskey, treasurer Marilyn Keevers and patron Joy Wicks. In acknowledging this executive, I acknowledge the executive over the last 110 years and the members over the past 110 years.</para>
<para>The Wardell Red Cross branch began a week after World War I was declared, with 105 locals quickly joining. They began with a 'cutting out' committee, where clothes were made and sent to frontline soldiers. Continuing these fundraising activities 110 years on, the branch has raised over $40,000 from many appeals—for defibrillators, for drought and bushfire relief and for overseas support for Nepal, Myanmar, Fiji and Indonesia. Again, I thank and congratulate the current executives: the president, Jeannee Spears; the vice-presidents, Ros Walsh and Jeannette Henwood; the treasurer, Paddy Goff; and the secretary, Jane Sproule. I also acknowledge all the executives and members over the last 110 years.</para>
<para>As I congratulate both of these branches, I'd also like to extend this congratulations to all the Red Cross branches in my electorate on their varying lengths of service, including Casino, Doubtful Creek, Jiggi-Georgica, Kyogle, Lismore, Lower Clarence, Woolgoolga, Yamba and Tuckurimba.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge and thank John Gorrie from Grafton for his 55 years of service in the soccer community. John began refereeing in the Grafton area in 1972, at 33 years of age, and over the following 55 years John has refereed, coached and held administrative roles for many competitions. John is still refereeing every Saturday for the MAJOS Football Club Grafton, where he is life member, motivating younger players and supporting everyone with his incredible knowledge.</para>
<para>John is highly respected by the Grafton soccer community. Some of his achievements include refereeing in the 1996 World Fun Cup for the Supa Oldies on the Gold Coast, helping with the foundation of the MAJOS Football Club Grafton, where he is still active, and refereeing for the North Coast and Far North Coast premier leagues. I acknowledge John for his highly decorated and respected career in the world of soccer and thank him for his contributions to the soccer community. I know that John's family—his wife, Fahey, and his children, John, Maree, Paul and Mark—are very proud of him.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the winter break, I spent a lot of time in the amazing electorate of Swan, speaking to people at the farmers markets, chatting to people at the shops and knocking on people's doors, and one thing that is crystal clear is that the cost of living is the No. 1 concern for my community. This is also the No. 1 priority for the Albanese Labor government and the top priority for the WA Cook Labor government. That's why we are working together to provide energy relief for every household. What this means is that, through this partnership between the WA government and the federal government, 84,000 households in Swan will be getting $700 off their electricity bills. People have started seeing $350 off their July bill, and the next instalment will come in December. That's just one part of the big picture.</para>
<para>Labor is working across the board to ease the pressure on workers, families, pensioners and students. Under Labor, real wages have gone up for the third quarter in a row. In the June quarter, we saw wages increase by 0.8 per cent, bringing an annual growth of 4.1 per cent. Nominal wages have consistently grown by at least four per cent over the last four quarters—something that never happened under the coalition—and this is because we are deliberately wanting to help people earn more.</para>
<para>Not only do we want to help people earn more; we also want to make sure that they're keeping more of what they earn. Our July tax cuts have helped 94,000 people in Swan. Eighty-one per cent of taxpayers in Swan are receiving a bigger tax cut than they would have received under the Liberal government. And let's not forget: in WA 1.2 million people will get a bigger tax cut because of Labor, and 600,000 of them are women.</para>
<para>Women are critical workers who make up the majority of the childcare workforce. Thanks to Labor, they are set to receive an overdue, well-earned 15 per cent pay rise over the next two years. I'd like to pay tribute to Senator Bilyk. She is an experienced childhood educator, and she shared that this is something the industry has fought hard for over the last 40 years. As a working mother, I know that the childhood educators at my daughter's childcare centre are worth their weight in gold.</para>
<para>We're also introducing legislation to wipe out $3 million of student debt for over three million Australians. Twenty-two thousand of them are in Swan and many of them are studying at Curtin University, where Labor has delivered extra university places. We're working hard everyday.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bangladesh</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to highlight and condemn, on behalf of Australia's Bangladeshi community, the terrible scenes that we've watched unfold in Bangladesh over recent weeks. The nation, rich in culture and resilience, is facing substantial challenges. Beneath its vibrant surface, Bangladesh is grappling with complex issues that deserve Australia's thoughtful consideration and action.</para>
<para>It's incredibly distressing whenever we see governments use force against their own citizens, especially those who are attempting nothing more than peaceful protest about the decisions of a government or a court system. The clashes between the people and the government have resulted in dozens of deaths of young university students and hundreds of injured people.</para>
<para>I've got a strong association with the Bangladeshi diaspora in Australia, and I want to extend to them my thoughts and concern. Obviously, we advocate for an open and democratic society in Bangladesh. I want to thank all the members of the community that have written to me extensively about the issue and have kept us up to date as parliamentarians about developments in the country. They are understandably fearful for the lives of their families and friends that live in Bangladesh. The distance from Bangladesh makes this very difficult.</para>
<para>It has been made all the more difficult by the distress at seeing government shut down the internet. Modern societies can be terrifying in that a government can shut down a single organ of communication and thereby control its citizenry. It's something we have to watch here as a free and open democracy. The government decision has cut off citizens from their fellow country people and from external care and thought.</para>
<para>That's why I think it's important to stand up in our region for the principles of democracy that Australia represents. We encourage peaceful resolution of these issues. We encourage the government to engage with its citizens in open dialogue and not to shut down, censor or persecute those that seek peaceful protest.</para>
<para>We are fortunate to live in a democracy where these rights have been traditionally respected and upheld. It's something we need to continue to fight for. We also need to continue as a parliament to call out those governments in our region that do not do the right thing by their own populations and erode freedom and democracy in our region. This situation serves as a stark reminder of the need for our powerful advocacy as a country. We are respected in our region and in the international community. We do have a strong voice, and I encourage the government to use that voice here in relation to what is happening in Bangladesh.</para>
<para>As Bangladesh moves forward, especially in the wake of the ousting of Sheikh Hasina, it's imperative that the country rebuilds with the tenets of democracy at its fore. It's something that we would welcome. Every voice amongst the Bangladeshi people deserves to be heard without fear of retribution. I know Australia and the entire parliament strongly condemn all of the violence that we've seen, especially government violence, and call on all parties involved to work urgently towards a peaceful solution with the principles of democracy in mind.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paterson Electorate: Basketball</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've all had a fantastic couple of weeks watching the Olympics. Where do these athletes come from? They come from places like Maitland, home to the Maitland Basketball Association and the Maitland Mustangs. I'd like to thank Amy McGregor, Trent Williams, coach Luke Boyle and team manager Michelle. I want to send a special shout-out to the development manager, Dan Howard. Dan, you are doing an incredible job. You have created opportunities for students in regional schools to access, learn and play basketball for free, often for the very first time, without having to travel long distances to sporting centres.</para>
<para>Dan recognised that regional schools needed a basketball program, and he decided to make a difference. Together with the Maitland Mustangs senior teams—who recently became the champions of NBL1; go mighty Maitland Mustangs—he travelled to regional schools, providing fund-free basketball classes in those schools.</para>
<para>Over 500 children have been granted these opportunities, all thanks to Dan, whose commitment to growing the next generation of basketball players and fans is really remarkable. Programs like these are so important to delivering healthy outcomes and opportunities for everyone, not just for those who can afford it. Who knows? We may see these kids at the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, playing for the Opals or the Boomers.</para>
<para>I recently had the privilege of catching up with Dan and the Maitland Mustangs to check out the new IT equipment they purchased through volunteer grant funding that I was able to help them secure. Dan is humble, kind and generous. He is such a great guy. He goes the extra mile for our young people to advocate for his beloved sport and to coach for Basketball NSW. I want to thank you, Dan, for your tireless commitment, not only to your beloved basketball but also to those kids who are going to get so much out of it.</para>
<para>I'd also like to congratulate Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council and their CEO, Andrew Smith, for winning the visitor attraction award at the Inavate Asia-Pacific Awards 2024 in Bangkok. This is an international award. It's an extraordinary achievement for Worimi. If you haven't had a chance to go to Murrook Culture Centre, it is a place not only of learning but of intentional spirituality. It is just remarkable. Do yourself a favour and go visit. They extend 60,000 years of knowledge and hospitality to us all, and I congratulate them and thank them for that deeply.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>118</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7211" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>118</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As part of a comprehensive range of measures the Albanese government is putting in place to combat scammers, we are also establishing the SMS Sender ID Register. The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 will require the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the ACMA, to establish and maintain a register of legitimate sender IDs. Instead of having to hunt down and eliminate all the fake scammer SMS sources, we will establish a register of those who have been authenticated as legitimate. The register will establish an industry standard for telecommunications providers who manage SMS traffic. The standard will require telcos who manage SMS traffic to check the SMSs that use sender IDs to ascertain whether a sender ID is on the register and whether the sender is the registered party. If not, the telco could be required to block or tag the SMS as fraudulent.</para>
<para>Once operating, the register will decrease the frequency and impact on consumers of SMS impersonation scams. It's good for consumers, but it's also good for businesses. The operation of the register will also increase protections for legitimate brands and agencies against bad actors impersonating them. I know I've been late paying a bill because I thought the messages I was receiving were from scammers. The sender ID registry will disrupt the business models for SMS impersonation scams. It will boost public confidence in SMS as a communications channel. The operation of the register will ultimately make Australia and Australians a harder target for scam activity.</para>
<para>But the Albanese government is not naive in thinking the register will provide a silver bullet against all future SMS impersonation scams. Unfortunately, we know that scammers will invariably change tactics and use new methods to contact and ensnare would-be victims. This is why the bill has inbuilt provisions to allow us to respond quickly. The bill provides for the Minister for Communications to make determinations in future by way of legislative instruments which will respond to the changing scam landscape. This will allow the minister to determine if there are future communications services other than SMS and MMS which may use sender identification in the future. The minister can determine whether there is something other than letters, numbers and symbols which may be included in sender identification in the future. And the minister can determine if there is additional relevant information that should be kept on the register in future.</para>
<para>The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 marks an important step in the Albanese government's multipronged approach to combating SMS scams. The May 2023 budget provided $86.5 million over four years to address scams and help keep Australians safe. This funding established the National Anti-Scam Centre in the ACCC from July 2023. It is an innovative, world-leading, public-private-sector partnership to disrupt and stop scammers in Australia. There has been a national campaign by the National Anti-Scam Centre to show Australians how to identify and protect themselves from scams. We've had the Assistant Treasurer in Boothby to run a very popular antiscam forum, and I've spoken to a number of groups about how to protect themselves from scams. In May 2024, through its Fighting Scams initiative, the Albanese government has committed a further $67.5 million over four years from 2024-25 to combat scams and protect Australians from financial harm. This funding will further support the introduction of mandatory industry codes which require all telecommunications providers, banks and digital platforms to identify, trace and block phone and SMS scams. To the end of March 2024, these code rules have already resulted in over 1.9 billion scam calls and 533 million scam texts being blocked.</para>
<para>Sadly, scammers are increasingly a part of our modern lives. We have previously been playing catch-up trying to identify and block scammers, and this has been a losing game. The faster we catch them, the faster they set up on a new phone number, a new site or a new business model. This bill aims to help Australians to take control and keep themselves safe by maintaining a register of trusted and verified numbers. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a sad fact that, for many Australians, when a text message comes in, it's not a message from a friend or a family member. Instead, it can often be a scam. Common SMS scams include fake order deliveries, refund scams, scams that suggest you've won a prize, scams that say there's an issue with your payments, impersonation of government websites and impersonation of well-known businesses such as Coles or Linkt.</para>
<para>This bill, the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, is an important step in the Albanese government's multipronged approach to combating SMS scams. It complements rules registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority which have seen over half a billion scam texts stopped between the middle of 2022 and March this year. The register also complements the Albanese government's establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre as a world-leading public and private sector partnership to disrupt and stop scam activities and the introduction of a scams code framework that requires telcos, banks and digital platforms to prevent, detect and disrupt scams.</para>
<para>The scams targeted by this bill—the fake text messages—are sent using a sender identification system which makes it look like a well-known company or brand. That can make it more likely that recipients of those text messages are deceived and more likely that they lose money as a result of this insidious scam activity.</para>
<para>The SMS sender ID register bill will require the Australian Communications and Media Authority to establish and maintain a register of legitimate sender IDs and engage a contracted provider to partially or wholly maintain the register. The bill allows for a voluntary or a mandatory register. An industry standard for telecommunications providers who manage SMS traffic will also be made by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The standard will require telecommunications providers who manage SMS traffic to check SMSs that use sender IDs to ascertain whether a sender is on the register and whether the sender is the registered party. If not, the telco could be required to block the SMS or tag it as fraudulent. Once it's fully established, legitimate businesses will be able to have their sender IDs placed on the register, which will decrease the frequency and impact of SMS impersonation scams and ensure better protections for legitimate brands. One of the problems of scams is that Australians are increasingly ignoring text messages from businesses, some of which are legitimate, for fear that they're receiving a scam message. This register will boost public confidence in text message as a communications channel.</para>
<para>The Albanese government knows that this isn't the only piece of tackling SMS impersonation scams. We know scammers will change tactics. We know they'll use new methods to contact and ensnare would-be victims. That's why the bill has inbuilt protections to allow the Minister for Communications to make determinations by way of legislative instruments which respond to a changing scam landscape. That might include future communications services other than SMS and MMS which might use sender identifications in the future; it might include a thing other than letters, numbers and symbols that might be included in sender identifications in the future; and it might include relevant additional information to accepted sender identifications that should be kept on the register in the future. This bill allows the ACMA to make determinations, by legislative instrument, setting out further requirements for access to the register.</para>
<para>We understand that scammers are using technology very rapidly and that artificial intelligence is allowing pernicious tailored scams which will specifically target vulnerable people, sometimes using personal information about them straight from the web. Allowing the legislation and the register to keep up with this sort of pernicious activity will be critical.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has committed $67 million over four years, starting from 2024-25, to combat scams. That supports measures such as the introduction of mandatory industry codes; the Australian Communications and Media Authority's work in enforcing compliance with the telecommunications industry's anti-scam code; and a campaign by the National Anti-Scam Centre as to how people can identify scams and protect themselves from scams. That's in addition to the $86 million over four years provided in last year's budget, which included funding to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre.</para>
<para>Telecommunications providers need to do more. I was troubled to speak to somebody from a major telecommunications provider recently who said that the reason that you will sometimes receive more scam text messages at night-time is that their people aren't working 24 hours. That needs to change. If these carriers are serious about disrupting scams, they need to be as vigilant against scam messages sent at 12 am as they are against messages sent at 12 pm.</para>
<para>We are doing a lot to block scam attempts, with some 1.9 billion scam calls and 533 million scam texts blocked up to the end of March 2024. I commend Ministers Rowland and Jones for the work that they're doing on this. The Albanese government understands that this pernicious criminal behaviour is costing Australians time and money, and we are doing all we can in order to put an end to scams in our community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is National Financial Awareness Day, an important day dedicated to promoting financial literacy and security. One of the biggest challenges posed to Australians' financial security today is the rise of SMS impersonation scams. The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 is a crucial step forward in the Albanese Labor government's multipronged approach to combating SMS scams. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to require ACMA to establish and maintain an SMS Sender ID Register. The register will play an important role in combating SMS scams by implementing a framework for the registration and regulation of SMS sender IDs.</para>
<para>We are taking decisive action to safeguard Australians against fraudulent activities. Many Australians are far too familiar with these frustrating and often devastating scams. SMS is now the most frequently reported contact method for scams, and almost $27 million was lost to scams in 2023, as reported to Scamwatch. Sadly, the monetary losses in reality are much higher than this amount, as not all people who fall victim to these scams actually report it. This almost $27 million is not just a statistic; it represents the loss of the hard-earned savings of many Australians, the reputations of businesses being impersonated and the security of many people's private information.</para>
<para>Through these scams, many individuals may face significant financial losses. This is because people are led to believe that the messages they receive are from well-known companies or brands such as banks, government agencies or retailers. The impacts can be equally devastating emotionally, leading to stress, anxiety and feelings of helplessness as people try to process the financial repercussions of falling for these scams.</para>
<para>SMS scams have become increasingly complex, using techniques such as phishing and spoofing. Phishing involves tricking people into giving away sensitive information by pretending to be a trusted entity, while spoofing involves faking a trusted identity to deceive victims, often as part of a phishing attack. Scammers can impersonate banks, government agencies or popular businesses, making it really hard for individuals to distinguish if the message they receive is genuine or fake. In a time when digital communication is rapidly evolving, the threat of SMS impersonation scams has grown significantly. Immediate and decisive action needs to be taken, which is precisely what this bill aims to address.</para>
<para>The introduction of the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 represents a proactive approach to stop the risks of SMS scams by establishing a thorough framework that is able to confirm the identity of legitimate SMS communications. As mentioned previously, one of the key components of the bill is the requirement for ACMA to establish and maintain a register of legitimate sender IDs. This register acts as a vital tool that will help to verify the legitimacy of SMS senders, which in turn will minimise the fraudulent messages. The bill provides ACMA with the flexibility to either directly manage the register or engage a contracted provider to partially or wholly maintain it. This flexibility will ensure the register can be efficiently managed by using external expertise to maintain its efficiency and reliability. It also gives ACMA powers to make determinations by legislative instrument. These instruments are crucial for outlining the specific requirements to access and administer the register. It will ensure the register operates seamlessly and transparently, which will provide a clear pathway for people and businesses to comply with its standards. The instruments will be created with a high attention to detail, ensuring all operational aspects are in place before the register is implemented.</para>
<para>Along with the register, the bill mandates the creation of an industry standard for telecommunications providers managing SMS traffic. This standard will require telcos to verify SMS messages using sender IDs against the register to determine their legitimacy. If a sender ID is found to be unregistered, the telecommunications provider may be obliged to block the SMS or tag the SMS as potentially fraudulent. This will act as a critical frontline defence against SMS impersonation scams, which means only verified communications reach the Australian public. Once the framework is operational, the register will be a reliable platform for legitimate businesses to register their sender IDs. By reducing the frequency and impact of SMS impersonation scams, the register not only protects Australians but also disrupts bad actors looking to exploit many vulnerable Australians.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is not naive in thinking the register will provide a silver bullet against all future SMS impersonation scams. We know scammers will consistently change tactics and use new methods to contact and trap would-be victims. This is why the bill has in-built provisions to allow the government to respond quickly. The bill provides for the Minister for Communications to make determinations in the future by way of legislative instrument, which will help respond to a changing scam landscape. This will allow the minister to determine future communications services other than SMS and MMS which may use sender identifications in the future.</para>
<para>As technology continues to evolve, new forms of communication services may emerge that could use sender identifications. The minister will have the power to recognise and include those future services under the regulatory framework. This will ensure that any emerging technologies such as messaging applications or other digital communications platforms are not left unregulated. The minister will also be able to expand the definition of 'sender identifications'. Currently, sender identifications are typically limited to letters, numbers and symbols. However, technological advancements may include new types of identifiers such as emojis, images or even biometric markers which could be incorporated into sender IDs. The minister will have the authority to determine which of these new elements can be included in sender identifications, allowing for a flexible and adaptive regulatory environment.</para>
<para>Lastly, the minister will also be able to determine additional relevant information for the register. The register currently focuses on accepted sender identifications, but there may be other relevant details that could improve its effectiveness. The minister will have the discretion to identify and mandate the inclusion of additional information on the register. Giving the minister this authority enables the government to stay ahead of technological trends and potential threats in the digital communication landscape.</para>
<para>In February 2023, ACMA conducted targeted consultations with key stakeholders, including telecommunications providers, government agencies, merchants and consumer organisations. After ACMA conducted their consultations, a public consultation took place during February and March of this year to get feedback on whether the register should be mandatory or voluntary. Both of these consultation periods have helped to guide the minister's decisions about this bill, to ensure the register is both effective and aligned with the needs of the community. ACMA are expected to hold further targeted consultations on draft legislative instruments. This again will help to refine the finer details of the register's processes, ensuring a strong framework that will help to protect the Australian public.</para>
<para>In the 2023-24 budget we committed to providing $86.5 million for the first step of a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to addressing the rise of scams. Through its Fighting Scams initiative, the Albanese Labor government has committed a further $67.5 million over four years from 2024-25 to combat scams and protect Australians from financial harm.</para>
<para>My colleague the member for Whitlam has played a significant role in helping to combat scams. Under his leadership, the Albanese government has implemented several key initiatives to protect Australians from fraud and scams. He has actively organised and hosted numerous forums across the country, focusing on educating and empowering Australians to stay vigilant against scams. These forums are designed to raise awareness about the evolving tactics used by scammers and to provide practical advice and information on how to protect personal information and finances.</para>
<para>We are introducing mandatory industry codes specifically designed to combat scams. Along with this, ACMA will be empowered to enforce compliance with the telecommunications industry antiscams code. This code is a vital tool which requires all telecommunications providers to identify, trace and block phone and SMS scams. These code rules have already produced significant results, with over 1.9 billion scam calls and 533 million scam texts blocked by the end of March 2024. This is a huge achievement and really shows the success of our government's efforts by working with industry partners to combat scams.</para>
<para>In the last budget we established the National Anti-Scams Centre, or NASC. This year the NASC will be launching a national campaign aimed at educating Australians on how to identify and protect themselves from scams. The NASC is housed within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or ACCC, and has been operational since July last year. This centre plays a very important role by helping coordinate national campaigns against scams, providing resources and support to people who have fallen victim to scams and fostering partnerships with industry and law enforcement agencies. The NASC's educational campaign will be instrumental in raising awareness and giving Australians the knowledge and tools to be able to recognise scams and avoid falling victim to them.</para>
<para>Together these initiatives that the Albanese Labor government has implemented, along with this bill, represent a comprehensive and robust approach to combating scams in Australia. We are firm in our commitment to protecting Australians from financial harm and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that all Australians can live in a secure and trusted digital environment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Scammers are the scum of our society. They are ruining lives and ripping people off. These criminals aren't wearing balaclavas or wielding a crowbar. Instead, they are sitting anonymously behind their computer screens or at the end of a phone line, often in countries far from here. Every one of us in this place will have met a constituent who has lost extraordinary sums of money to these scammers, and their stories are heartbreaking. As their federal MP, I have been trying to do everything I can to help them get their money back, but in many of these cases, there's very little that can be done for them once the money has been taken. I have been hearing of people who have lost huge amounts of money because they've clicked on a link or they've answered the desperate calls of someone who they thought was their daughter who was in distress and they then sent some money off. It has been so sad to hear about the impact this has had on them.</para>
<para>While scams have been around for a long time, in the last few years they have gotten more sophisticated and more damaging. As technology has advanced, so too have scammers. With more and more of our personal and financial information being stored online, this has meant more opportunities for theft, and none of us are immune from these scams. The stereotype of someone who would get scammed is often someone who's a bit older and maybe not as digitally savvy, but a 2023 Deloitte survey found that, actually, it was those in the gen Z and millennial cohorts who were more likely to be scammed than their grandparents. Scammers have become so sophisticated that they managed to convince a financial advice columnist for a New York magazine to put $50,000 cash in a box and hand it to a stranger because she thought that person was a CIA agent. This is the level of sophistication that we are now getting to. The piece that she wrote about her experience went viral online because people were sharing their own stories about how they had been scammed.</para>
<para>We have heard of similar experiences from people coming to my office. There was a public school teacher who was scammed of $50,000. There was a young man who had been working to save up for a deposit on his first home. He lost the entire deposit. These are heartbreaking stories, but what is the government doing to help protect citizens against these scams? This bill, the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, is part of a broader suite of measures that the government is working on that are designed to crack down on scammers and reduce scamming losses right across the country. I'm really proud of the work that the Labor government is doing, because we have made this a significant priority in helping to protect Australians.</para>
<para>Foremost in the government's push has been establishing the National Anti-Scam Centre. This is a unique centre that is the first of its kind in taking a proactive approach to fight fraud and scams. It's an innovative partnership that unites government agencies, law enforcement and businesses to deploy cutting-edge technology to block scams right at the source. Importantly, the National Anti-Scam Centre has an education function as well. It will empower communities and individuals by raising awareness and providing practical tips to safeguard against scammers.</para>
<para>The initial findings of the Albanese government's crackdown on scammers have shown some promising results. According to the National Anti-Scam Centre's second quarterly report, scam losses in the period October to December 2023 have almost halved in comparison to the same period just the year prior. Prior to the Albanese government taking office, annual scam losses in Australia exceeded $3 billion, a quadrupling over three years. The amount of $3 billion that was being taken out of people's pockets obviously had a huge impact on their lives, and that problem was growing exponentially before we came to government.</para>
<para>Since our government's intervention, this trend has reversed. In the first six months of the crackdown, we saw significant reductions, with reporting for November 2023 showing a 50 per cent decrease in losses compared to the previous year. This means that the work that we are doing is having an impact. However, we are still losing too much money, and people's lives are still getting damaged by scammers, and we know that there is a lot more work to do.</para>
<para>What I am doing at the local level is ensuring that my community has a good understanding of what scams look like and how they can protect themselves against being scammed. It was a great morning when we held our seniors morning tea recently. The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, came along to Burwood Public School to speak to seniors directly about how they can protect themselves and their families from being scammed. We had about 150 people in the hall that day, and the Assistant Treasurer asked members of the audience to put their hand up if they had received a scam text, email or online message, and almost everyone in the audience put their hand up. He then asked if anyone knew of anyone who had been scammed, and there were people who still had their hands up. Everyone in that audience had had some interaction with a scammer. That's the unfortunate state of affairs that we currently live in.</para>
<para>But it's not just individuals and families who are vulnerable to scams; it's also businesses. So I invited the then minister for home affairs, Clare O'Neil, to join a small business forum that I held, along with Realeyes business, who had an expert cybersecurity speaker there, to help inform small businesses about how they can protect themselves and their customers from hacks and from being scammed. We want to make sure that we do everything we can to reduce the losses from scams and to make sure that individuals, families and small businesses are not vulnerable to these criminal activities.</para>
<para>It's important to make sure that we minimise the avenues for scammers to approach our community via SMS and MMS, as well as online. According to the department, SMS is now the most frequently reported contact method for scams. As the 'Fighting SMS scams: what type of SMS sender ID registry should be introduced in Australia?' consultation paper has noted, we've all become accustomed to receiving SMSs from businesses and organisations that we trust.</para>
<para>It's estimated that $27 million was lost in scams in 2023 alone, but this figure is likely to be an underestimation, as many scams go unreported. That's why in April 2023, the government announced the establishment of an SMS sender register, alongside the creation of the National Anti-Scam Centre that sits within the ACCC. These measures were complemented by rules introduced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which require companies to block scam text messages. We know that during the period from July to December 2022, telcos blocked more than 90 million scam texts. That's 90 million scam texts. We were getting these multiple times a day. This government knows that we have to keep building on protections for our community, and this is what this bill does.</para>
<para>The establishment of the SMS Sender ID Registry is designed to fundamentally undermine the business model of SMS scammers. It will help to prevent scammers from impersonating brands and organisations and will start to restore public confidence in SMS as a communications channel. Under a potentially mandatory model, all organisations sending text messages with letter based sender IDs to Australian mobile phones would need to register these IDs. This would apply to both Australian and overseas senders. Phone companies would also have to follow new regulations which would require them to either block messages from unregistered senders or add a warning label to these messages saying that they might be scams. For the person receiving the SMS, this would prevent people from receiving a SMS from scammers claiming to be a particular company or organisation. It would allow receivers of a SMS to trust that when a text message says it's from the ATO it is actually from the ATO. Where an entity is not registered, it would require the telcos to send a scam warning alongside it.</para>
<para>There's more work for us to do, but we've already started the really important work of helping to safeguard our community from these scammers. Education is the big piece here to ensure that individuals are not susceptible to falling prey to these scammers. I'm going to continue to hold antiscam forums across my community to help individuals and small businesses keep on the lookout for these scam messages.</para>
<para>If there's anything that I can leave the community with it's that there are three simple things you can do to help protect yourself. The first is to ensure that you have a complicated password by trying to use a passphrase instead of a password. The second is to ensure that you have two-factor authentication; you can set that up to ensure that it is much harder for scammers to access your banking or financial details. The third is to check: if someone were to send you an email or a SMS, instead of clicking through to the link, call the organisation or institution that is trying to get in contact with you. The one thing Lillian, who came to my seniors morning tea where Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones was speaking about the problem of scams, took out of that antiscam forum was: do not click on the blue link in that email or SMS. In the words of Lillian: 'Keep that in mind. Do not click on the blue link.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024. This is a crucial piece of legislation aimed at protecting Australians from the pervasive threat of SMS scams. This bill represents a vital step in our broader strategy to combat scams, specifically targeting SMS fraud, where scammers send messages that appear to be from well-known brands such as banks, government agencies or retailers.</para>
<para>In recent years we have been bombarded by a burst of texts from individuals posing as reputable organisations. These might include a text from Australia Post requesting payment of a small customs fee or a message from Linkt claiming you have an outstanding toll invoice even if you haven't driven on a toll road. These scams not only are financially devastating but also cause significant psychological distress and erode trust in digital communications.</para>
<para>This bill will establish a SMS sender ID register managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. By creating a register of sender IDs, we aim to protect consumers from being deceived and to safeguard the reputation of legitimate brands and agencies.</para>
<para>The scope of the problem we are addressing is immense. In 2023 alone, almost $27 million was lost to SMS scams reported to Scamwatch. The actual losses are likely much higher, as not all scams are reported. It is difficult to imagine an Australian who hasn't received one of these fraudulent text messages claiming to be from a bank or a toll road operator and aiming to steal their money or personal information.</para>
<para>Over the past year, significant progress has been made by the government. Data released by the ACCC in April 2024 indicates that estimated scam losses were down 13.1 per cent in 2023 compared to 2022. This reduction is encouraging, but we acknowledge that Australians are still losing too much to scammers. There is no silver bullet to eliminate scam activity. Scammers will inevitably adapt and employ new methods to target victims. The formal creation of this register will bolster our existing antiscam measures. Once operational, this register will reduce the frequency and impact of SMS impersonation scams on Australians, restore confidence in SMS as a communication channel and ultimately make Australia a harder target for scam activity. A pilot register has been operational since last year, generating valuable insights that have informed this bill.</para>
<para>This bill is the next formal step in creating an SMS sender ID register, which, once fully operational, will offer better protection for consumers and enhance brand protection for legitimate businesses and entities using SMS sender IDs. The main elements of this bill are as follows: a requirement for the ACMA or a contracted service provider to establish and maintain the register; a two-step registration process specifying how entities may apply to the ACMA for approval to register one or more sender IDs; provisions for a deferred commencement date to allow ACMA time to finalise the technical and operational aspects of the register; authority for the Minister for Communications to determine by legislative instrument other communication services that may use sender IDs in the future; and hybrid decision-making, where decisions based on objective criteria can be made by computer programs, while decisions requiring evaluative judgements are made by humans.</para>
<para>It is important to understand the broader context in which this bill is being introduced. The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 is a crucial component of the Albanese Labor government's approach to combating scams. The establishment of the register complements rules registered by the ACMA in 2022, which successfully blocked more than 530 million scam texts between July 2022 and March 2024. This bill is also part of the broader agenda to combat scams, including the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre, a world-leading partnership between government and industry designed to disrupt and stop scammers in Australia. Additionally, the introduction of a scams code framework requires telcos, banks and digital platforms to prevent, detect and disrupt scams. The scams targeted by this bill involve fake text messages that appear to come from trusted sources. These SMS scams use a sender identification—sender ID—in the message header that looks like that of a well-known company or brand. Unfortunately, people receiving these SMS impersonation scams are often tricked into responding or taking actions suggested by these text messages, leading to the theft of personal information or money.</para>
<para>The establishment of the SMS Sender ID Registry will require the ACMA to establish and maintain a register of legitimate sender IDs. The bill confers powers on the ACMA to make a determination setting out further requirements for access to the register and its administration and operation. The ACMA will also create an industry standard for telecommunications providers who manage SMS services. This standard will require telcos to check whether a sender ID is on the register and whether the sender is the registered party. If not, the telco could be required to block or tag the SMS as fraudulent. Once the framework for the register is fully established, businesses and entities will be invited to apply to have their sender IDs placed on the register. Whether the register will be voluntary or mandatory is yet to be determined and is not the focus of this bill. Following that decision, rules will be made to bind relevant parties of the industry. This mechanism is not a feature in the bill and will be addressed by existing powers in the Telecommunications Act 1997.</para>
<para>The deferred start date for this bill will accommodate the fact that there are details still under consultation. The register will need to deploy a complex IT system capable of interacting with current systems used by the telecommunications industry, and it will need robust privacy and security settings.</para>
<para>The bill provides for a hybrid decision-making process, allowing some automated decision-making through the use of computer programs, while decisions requiring evaluations and judgement will be made by humans. The bill includes measures to reduce the risk of automated decision-making, such as oversight by the ACMA and the ability to substitute any incorrect decisions made by a computer program.</para>
<para>This bill is testament to our commitment to protecting Australians from the ever-evolving threat of scams. It's a crucial measure that will enhance our antiscam framework, protect consumers and restore trust in digital communications. We know that scammers will try different tactics and use new methods to contact potential victims. This is why the bill includes provisions for the Minister for Communications to make decisions that respond quickly to the changing scam landscape.</para>
<para>The development of this bill has been informed by two rounds of stakeholder and public consultations. The ACMA initially undertook targeted consultation in February 2023 with key stakeholders, including telecommunication providers, government agencies, merchants and consumer organisations, to examine their support for the establishment of a register. This broad public consultation was undertaken in February and March 2024. It is expected that the ACMA will undertake further targeted consultation on draft legislative instruments required to settle the finer details of the register processes.</para>
<para>This builds on the government's previous work in combating scams. Through its Fighting Scams initiative, the Albanese Labor government has committed a further $67.5 million over four years from 2024-25 to combat scams and protect Australians from financial harm. This funding will support additional measures, including the introduction of mandatory industry codes to combat scams, and a campaign by the National Anti-Scam Centre to help Australians identify and protect themselves from scams. The funding provided in the May budget is in addition to the $86.5 million over four years allocated in the May 2023 budget, which included funding to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre in the ACCC from July 2023.</para>
<para>The telecommunications industry antiscam code requires all telecommunication providers to identify, trace and block phone and SMS scams. These code rules have resulted in over 1.9 billion scam calls and 533 million scam texts being blocked by the end of March 2024.</para>
<para>The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 is the next step in our commitment to protecting Australians from the ever-evolving threat of scams. It is a crucial measure that will enhance our antiscam framework, protect consumers and restore trust in digital communications. I urge my colleagues in this House to support this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to speak to the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to bolster the security of our communication channels by establishing an SMS sender ID register. The primary goal of this register is to combat impersonation and the subsequent fraud that arises from that impersonation. Bad actors often spoof industry and government brand names in messages, leading to financial losses for businesses and for individuals—sometimes at life-altering levels.</para>
<para>I'm aware of HSBC customers, including a number in my electorate, who have been targeted by sophisticated bank impersonation scams since at least April 2023. I've heard from a significant number of constituents whose lives have been irrevocably altered by the tragic financial losses they have suffered as a result of this disgraceful situation. One received a phone call from a scammer who claimed to work for the HSBC fraud team. The scammer sent messages which appeared to be from HSBC because they appeared in the same text thread as previous messages that constituent had received from their bank. Who wouldn't fall for this scam? Ultimately that scam took control of the account, and the scammer stole almost $50,000 from my constituent. I've spoken of this issue before in the House, and it bears repeating: scammers prey on people who are trying to do the right thing. People can lose their life savings through no fault of their own. The cost of fraudulent SMS activity in Australia in 2023 was about $27 million. This bill should go some way to curbing those losses.</para>
<para>Under the bill, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, or a nominated third party will create and maintain the register. It will cover the short message service, or SMS or texts, and the multimedia message service, or MMS. The bill also anticipates the inclusion of future message services. It needs to be established as soon as is practical.</para>
<para>This register will serve as a repository for legitimate sender identifications—that is, it will enable legitimate services to be identified thus. The bill defines 'sender identification' to prevent misuse. ACMA will have the power to accept or reject registrations and to deregister users. I'm really pleased to see the register has been funded by the government at $10.9 million over four years, with an ongoing budget of $2.2 million. This is a very small investment in the safety of our citizens, many of whom have lost huge amounts of money.</para>
<para>The next critical step in stopping scammers will be in determining whether or not SMS sender identification is voluntary or mandatory. There are pros and cons to both, but I know that 89 per cent of respondents who were involved in consultation around this bill were in favour of a mandatory register, as am I. Under that model ACMA will identify legitimate senders and will enforce compliance. In a voluntary scheme, senders could choose to register but it would be for the telecommunication companies—the telcos—to verify user legitimacy. It's clear that a voluntary scheme could place more risk and more cost on telecommunications companies.</para>
<para>ACMA plans to undertake a cost analysis for both models. The implementation and running costs may fall entirely on the Commonwealth unless ACMA designates telcos as third-party agents. ACMA could perhaps consider a hybrid model in which industry and the Commonwealth share the operating and developmental costs of the register; I know there was a precedent for this sort of model in the late 1990s.</para>
<para>Industry taking the lead in determining the legitimate senders within our telco system could benefit the public in many ways. It could reduce the burden on public funds of the sorts of disgraceful losses we've seen as a result of the activities of these terrible scammers. It could enable more timely intervention at the point of sale and it could well lighten ACMA's regulatory burden by freeing up resources.</para>
<para>The government's efforts to tackle scammers are encouraging, but we still need to do more to strengthen our systems and to resist the growing levels of organised crime behind scams. I reiterate my call for a mandatory SMS sender identification register, and I look forward to the completion of the ACMA analysis of the cost of that model. I look forward to clarification of the government's plans at the time of the third reading of this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024. The humble text message—the SMS, or short message service—was developed long before the wide proliferation of mobile phones in pockets or, as was more likely the case decades ago, in the cars of the majority of Australians. Despite this, the SMS message has remained part of the core functions of mobile services to this very day, surviving well into the age of the smartphone, an age where our lives are all increasingly intertwined with digital communication. In this current age, the trusty text message, unfortunately, may not be as trustworthy as some may believe it to be. Any medium of technology that connects people together opens up the possibility of bad actors exploiting it for the purposes of anything from identity theft to financial fraud, through any number of scams, ranging in levels of sophistication. Many have, it seems, placed a little too much trust in this means of communication, with the cost of that trust being expensive for many Australians and indeed people throughout the world.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to enacting measures to protect Australians from all walks of life, across all domains, with one of those domains now being that small screen we all carry around with us every waking moment. The SMS Sender ID Register is a practical and crucial step to protect Australians from the escalating threat of SMS scams. This bill is not an isolated measure but part of a broader strategy by the Albanese Labor government to enhance digital security across the nation. It complements other initiatives such as the recent enhancements to cybersecurity frameworks, efforts to improve data privacy and the recent establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre by our government.</para>
<para>This is because our government knows, just like many of Australia's largest companies and telecommunications providers, that the cost to Australians falling victim to these scammers aren't purely economic in nature. Many of these victims—particularly those who are older Australians or those with a culturally and linguistically diverse background, for example—would also suffer further cost by way of loss in their level of trust and faith when using technology and digital communications, whether that be to stay connected with their families and peers, to stay engaged with their community and the outside world or to engage with business and government agencies. Many feel helpless with using newer forms of technology to begin with, and, when they realise they have been scammed, when it is already too late, many feel too ashamed to contact authorities or to speak with their families about what happened.</para>
<para>This is another reason why, when we hear statistics and figures relating to scams perpetrated against Australians, the volume of economic costs caused are, to a degree, always going to be understated. Many, conceding defeat or still in a state of confusion and bewilderment over what happened, would not easily speak up about what has happened to them and are known to be a victim only to themselves and the malicious individuals who preyed upon them. They suffer in silence, sometimes tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off, showing a public face of strength to friends and families and going without to keep up the appearance of things being business as usual.</para>
<para>These things can start with something that would appear, to the untrained eye, to be quite innocent. Most Australians aren't targeted by these kinds of scams in a direct way. This is happening at a grand scale. Text messaging scams can appear simplistic. To many of us, they are an occasional nuisance, but they have grown to become significantly more sophisticated. Scammers have adapted their tactics, using methods such as number spoofing to impersonate legitimate businesses and deceive unsuspecting Australians.</para>
<para>I was going through some blocked messages the other night, and it was quite easy to find numbers that looked quite plausible and perhaps—to one in every thousand or so individuals who receive the message—legitimate. First there was one starting off with 'CommBank Security: Your account has a suspicious transaction.' Next there was 'AusPost: There is an issue with your parcel.' Then there was one that wasn't about a delivery or banking: 'You are about to miss a deadline on your toll payment. You can fix this here.' All of them were followed with a shortened link that could lead to anything from malicious spyware attempting to install on my device or being sent through to a website relatively similar to that of who they claim to be.</para>
<para>I don't bank with CommBank, I very rarely have parcels delivered to my home, and in South Australia we don't have any tollways, but, if others were subjected to these scam messages, it would be easy to fall for them. Further, I had a message the other day on my personal device from someone claiming to be my daughter: 'Hi Dad. I dropped my phone. Can you text me your number?' Well, how did you get my number to be able to text me a message like that? It's easy for us to have a lapse in judgement and hit that link or send that message and confirm the connection. Links go to a website asking me to log in, and I could potentially end up entering personal information and financial details that could lead to my identity being stolen or my bank account being drained. Only after seeing my account emptied would I then realise that maybe the error message that had popped up, advising me to transfer funds through to a secure account, wasn't that secure and maybe wasn't that real to begin with. But, by that time, the money is long gone, the trail is relatively cold. Often, the humiliating process of coming to terms with what happened runs parallel to an individual reaching out to agencies, insurers and banks, trying to make it right again and pick up the pieces. Many people lose their rainy day money or even their life savings—everything. Sometimes it's lost just to a digital portal rather than to any slick social engineering to close the deal on an unsuspecting mark.</para>
<para>If I had clicked on the link, who knows what would have happened, but, in the wake of such an experience, I assume that most, if not all, text messages popping up on my phone are fraudulent. Many end up significantly disconnected from societal participation as a result, whether it be something as innocuous as a friend or family member sending you a text—how can you be sure? The scammer said they were from the bank; the message said it at the top of the message, after all.</para>
<para>Many services that we use every day also use text messages to communicate with us. It could be a doctor's surgery reminding me of an upcoming appointment, and they want me to confirm my time with them. It could be a company or even a government agency sending me an SMS with a code as part of a two-factor authentication, which is, after all, the way we sign into our Parliamentary Expenses Management System. But how can I be sure that the code I'm getting from the Department of Finance is really from them? This is why there is a need for measures to address ways of combating the prevalence of this type of scam. Hopefully the process that led to the introduction of the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 acts as an example of how adopting a collaborative approach, whereby industry, government, regulatory agencies and law enforcement work together, can restore public trust within society as well as in the common text message.</para>
<para>I mentioned the National Anti-Scam Centre earlier. It provided me, through their website, with a very sobering picture of the state of play with scams in Australia. Across the 2023-24 financial year alone, Australians reported the loss of over $326 million to scams, with, roughly, 288,000 reports. SMS scams in that time cost Australians $18 million. Although the percentage of the financial loss wasn't as high as other methods that scammers can utilise, SMS scams did comprise 36 per cent of total reported incidents during that financial year, with the three biggest methods of attack being investment scams, phishing scams and romance scams. Close to 51 per cent of all reported SMS scams losses were incurred by individuals that were 55 years or older. Doing nothing or merely having educational or awareness campaigns is the sole method of combatting these incidents, although I am—and I'm sure a number of my constituents who have received one from my office are—grateful to have a copy of the <inline font-style="italic">Little Black Book of Scams</inline> that is published by the ACCC. Having this level of awareness in the community about scams is important, but having a mechanism that will prevent and deter SMS scams backed by telcos, large institutional companies and government is something that was called for, and, thus, the journey to the establishment of the SMS sender ID registry began in earnest.</para>
<para>The SMS sender ID registry will require businesses to register their sender IDs with the Australian Communications and Media Authority—ACMA. This process will create a safeguard against fraudsters who attempt to impersonate legitimate entities. Businesses will submit their sender IDs and associated details to a centralised database held by ACMA, ensuring these IDs are protected from unauthorised use. Think of the SMS sender ID register as a digital shield—fortified, resilient and ever vigilant—protecting Australians from the king tide of fraudulent messages. This shield must be both flexible and scalable, capable of adapting to future technological advancements, while handling a large volume of sender IDs.</para>
<para>ACMA's role in the process is critical. The authority will verify and authenticate sender IDs by cross-referencing businesses' details with existing records to ensure legitimacy. The system will employ technical safeguards to prevent duplication or misuse of registered IDs, maintaining the integrity of this registry. This, alongside the continuous monitoring of SMS traffic, will allow ACMA to detect violations and to respond to violations, including by issuing fines and suspending sender ID privileges when necessary.</para>
<para>The development and implementation of this bill has been supported by key stakeholders across various sectors. Major telecommunications providers such as Optus and TPG recognise the necessity of a mandatory SMS sender ID register. These companies understand that maintaining consumer trust is crucial, and they are committed to supporting measures to enhance this trust.</para>
<para>The financial sector has also been a strong advocate for this legislation. Banks and financial institutions are on the front line of the battle against scams, witnessing firsthand the devastating impact these scams can have on their customers. Institutions such as Bendigo Bank, Adelaide Bank and NAB have stressed the importance of a centralised, enforceable system to combat these sophisticated scams. Their backing, along with that of the telecommunications companies, greatly improves the SMS Sender ID Register's potential to protect customers and preserve the integrity of the financial system.</para>
<para>Quotes from industry leaders reflect the widespread support for this initiative. As one industry leader put it, 'The SMS Sender ID Register is a crucial step forward in protecting our customers from the sophisticated scams that threaten their financial security every day. We fully support this initiative and look forward to working with the government to ensure its success.' Such endorsements highlight the importance of this legislation and the collaborative effort required to make it effective.</para>
<para>Small businesses, often disproportionately affected by scams due to limited resources, will also benefit significantly from this legislation. The strength of this bill lies in its collaborative development. By engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, we have crafted a framework that addresses the immediate threat posed by SMS scams, while considering the needs and concerns of all affected parties.</para>
<para>The feedback received from stakeholders highlighted the importance of a mandatory register as opposed to a voluntary one. A mandatory register ensures that all SMS service providers participate in the system, creating a comprehensive and effective safeguard against scams. Stakeholders also emphasised the need for robust verification processes to prevent misuse of the register, and the bill reflects these recommendations by incorporating stringent identity checks for all registrants.</para>
<para>This bill is a definite step in the right direction, from the collaborative nature of combating fraudulent activities through to finding the best mechanism. Given where we are today, this proposed SMS Sender ID Register was considered the best fit to do so. It should act as a litmus test for solutions to combating the many other nefarious mediums that individuals attempt to use in order to defraud everyday Australians. As scammers and other fraudulent and malicious actors out there—both at home and abroad—adapt and get smarter and more sophisticated in the manner and methodology of how they prey upon ordinary Australians, then so too must we.</para>
<para>This is why the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 represents a vital step forward in safeguarding Australians from the ever-growing threat of SMS scams. By establishing this register, we are closing the door on scammers who seek to exploit our telecommunications networks. Together—government, industry, law enforcement and every Australian—we can build a safer, more secure digital future.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House. As an aside, to all members who haven't picked up a copy of the ACCC's <inline font-style="italic">Little Black Book of Scams</inline>, I highly recommend you do so. It is a great tool that many of our constituents would thank us for making available to them at our offices. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make my contribution on the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024. In the past few years we have seen a significant increase in scams as well as an increased focus on how to better combat them. They have touched the lives of every Australian. Everyone knows someone who's been scammed, or they have been scammed themselves. Scams come in all shapes and forms. It could be by email, SMS, a phone call, social media or even a knock on the door.</para>
<para>At least once a day, Australians are confronted by scams in some form, and the most common types are those through SMS and phone calls. Australians often get a call from an unknown number, or a misspelt text message claiming to be from a major company. This presents a significant issue, as phone calls and text messages are often the only way to contact companies and we are often waiting for messages and phone calls from them. While some are more obvious than others, it can be really difficult to discern what is real and what is fake.</para>
<para>Only recently the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, reported a rise in SMS scams impersonating companies like Coles, Telstra, Optus and Woolies, relating to loyalty and reward points. Of course they are by no means unique or unfamiliar to Australians. In 2024 over 95,000 scams were reported to the National Anti-Scam Centre's Scamwatch, and, since new rules were implemented in 2022 by ACMA, more than 533 million scam texts between July 2022 and March 2024 were blocked, helping to stop those scams before they reached Australians.</para>
<para>The introduction of this bill marks the next step in the Albanese government's ongoing effort to protect Australians from scams. It builds on the government's commitment to a further $67.5 million over four years to combat scams. This will support the introduction of mandatory industry codes to combat scams; the ACMA work in enforcing compliance with the telco industry's antiscams code; and a campaign by the National Anti-Scam Centre, which was established on 1 July 2023, on how Australians can identify and protect themselves from scams. This funding is in addition to the $86.5 million over four years provided in the May 2023 budget, which included funding to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre. Already our efforts have helped combat scams, with recent data indicating that from 2022 to 2023 scam losses declined by 13.1 per cent.</para>
<para>This bill, once passed, will require ACMA to establish and maintain an SMS sender register, delivering on our April 2023 announcement to establish the register. The bill was informed by two tranches of stakeholder and public consultation by ACMA and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, which gathered feedback from telecommunications providers, government agencies, merchants, consumer organisations and the public. The register, once established, will play a crucial role in fighting SMS scams by helping Australians better identify and differentiate between legitimate businesses and scams. Scams that will be targeted by this register are those text messages that are sent using a sender ID in a message header which looks similar to well-known companies that Australians may interact with daily. There are an estimated 300,000 legitimate sender IDs in use in Australia which could potentially be registered, and this legislation lays the groundwork necessary for that registration.</para>
<para>Explicitly embedded in this bill are essential elements for applications, the refusal of applications and the removal of entities from the register. ACMA will be tasked with setting up further requirements for access to the register and for its administration and operation before the register commences. ACMA will establish an industry code for telecommunications providers who manage SMS traffic, requiring telcos who manage that traffic to check if an SMS using a sender ID is on the register. If it's not, the telco will be required to block or tag the SMS as potentially fraudulent.</para>
<para>To ensure that ACMA have the appropriate time to develop further requirements for access to the register, establish the industry code and procure the necessary ICT platforms to establish the register, the bill allows for a deferred commencement date. The deferred commencement date will accommodate the decision that will be made later this year on whether the register will be voluntary or mandatory. To allow for the time needed by ACMA to finalise these preparations, the bill provides that ACMA must establish the register 'as soon as practicable', allowing the necessary flexibility to prepare for the commencement of the register. It is expected that it will be operational by late 2025 and, once fully operational, will make Australia a harder target for scam activity.</para>
<para>Of course, the Albanese government does not think the register will be a silver bullet against SMS scams. We know that scammers will continue to employ new methods, which is why provisions in this bill will allow the government to respond quickly in the face of these growing threats. The bill will allow the minister to determine future communications services, other than SMS and MMS, which may use sender identifications; something other than letters, numbers and symbols which may be included in sender identification; and relevant information additional to accepted sender identification that should be kept on the register.</para>
<para>Since 2022, the Albanese government has taken a multipronged approach to combating scams. As a result we have seen a reduction in the number of Australians losing money to scams. But the number is still far too high, and our government will continue to fight the scammers. This bill is the next step in our plan to help protect Australians. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7209" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7210" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>129</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 form the next steps in the Albanese government's simplified trade system agenda, which will deliver a simpler, more effective and more sustainable cross-border trade environment for Australia. We all know that Australia is a trading nation. Much of our commerce and our economic growth is related to trade through international borders, and it's important that we ensure that the system operates to effectively and efficiently deliver those goods and services to Australia while, at the same time, maintaining the integrity of and protecting our borders. This bill ensures that we achieve that objective.</para>
<para>The Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill amends the Customs Act and the AusCheck Act to modernise and align customs processes and strengthen compliance with customs licensing. The Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill amends the Customs Licensing Charges Act to incorporate amendments to modernise, streamline and strengthen the calculation of depot licensing charges.</para>
<para>The bills represent sensible and overdue steps to modernise Australia's customs processes. They come about as a result of the review of customs licensing regimes that was undertaken many years ago. That review reported on 31 March 2017, so it's taken some time to get this reform to the parliament, and they are long overdue. Many of these reforms will save Australian businesses time and money and will reduce the regulatory burden associated with certain customs processes.</para>
<para>The amendments in the bills modernise customs licensing administration by allowing electronic communication methods and by streamlining licence fee processes. The amendments also align payment requirements between custom licence types, and they streamline administration across depot, warehouse and broker licences. The legislation also strengthens the customs licensing regime against threats of criminal infiltration and bolsters the efforts of the Australian Border Force to ensure integrity in our supply chains. This includes uplifting entry requirements for eligibility to hold a licence and enhanced fit and proper person checks for licensed entities.</para>
<para>Finally, the customs amendment bill makes consequential amendments to the AusCheck Act to, among other things, permit the disclosure of information to an officer of customs for purposes under the Customs Act. The legislation will enhance the integrity of Australia's borders, which is vital for a prosperous, secure and safe Australia. The Australian Border Force will continue to consult and support businesses with their transition to these new changes. I want to thank all members who participated in the debate and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7210" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>130</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>130</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>People are being robbed at the supermarket check-out, and Labor couldn't care less—couldn't care less. Paying more than a hundred bucks for a basic grocery shop is daylight robbery, yet families around the country are being forced to do this every day. Coles and Woolworths are ripping people off at the check-out, and Labor won't do anything about it. Coles and Woolies are raking in more than a billion dollars of profit during a cost-of-living crisis, and Labor won't do anything about it. Households are being forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying the rent, and Labor won't do anything about it. Fruit, some veggies, eggs, cheese, bread, milk, even toilet paper—these should be treated as essential items, not a luxury, yet, because Coles and Woolworths keep price gouging with absolutely no consequence, they're becoming harder and harder to afford.</para>
<para>We need to break up the supermarket duopoly and we need to make price gouging illegal. Labor has the power to do this today but is choosing not to. No-one should have to tap their card at the check-out and worry whether they have enough money to cover the shop that day. By putting the big Coles and Woolworths supermarkets duopoly on notice that they can be broken up and by ending price gouging and making it illegal, we can bring down the cost of living and make groceries cheaper for everyone. The only thing standing in the way of that right now is the Labor Party.</para>
<para>This has reached crisis point in this country. Woolworths made $1.6 billion in profit in its most recent annual results. Coles made $1.1 billion in profit in its most recent annual results. And what does the Prime Minister do? He dresses himself up in a Coles vest and goes and plays Coles cosplay while everyone else is struggling to afford the groceries at the check-out and wondering whether their card is going to bounce and whether they've got enough money to pay for the basics to stay alive.</para>
<para>People are skipping meals in order to pay the rent and their mortgages. Rents, on average, have gone up a hundred dollars a week since this government came to power, and mortgages about double that. As a result, 3.7 million families, it's reported today, are struggling with food insecurity in this country because the massive cost-of-living pressures that are coming from everywhere are being felt by people in many places and especially at the check-out. Meanwhile, what happens? Coles and Woolies make billions of dollars in profit, and the Prime Minister embraces them and hugs them and does press conferences with them in their uniforms. Meanwhile, at that very same Coles supermarket that day, there's someone who's choosing whether or not they can put that $20-a-kilo cheese, or milk or bread into their supermarket trolley, because they're worried they're not going to have enough money to be able to afford it. Food services are telling us that they're seeing people that they've never seen before. People who've got jobs and people who've got stable accommodation are coming up and asking for help because the cost of everything is going up so much.</para>
<para>What is driving the inflation crisis in this country? It's not everyday people who are struggling to make ends meet and to have enough money to pay for food and to pay rent. It's the massive profiteering by these big corporations that are making record profits. The money's not finding its way to the farmers or the producers of the food. It's going straight to the owners of these big corporations who are making massive profits off the back of price gouging and profiteering in the middle of a crisis.</para>
<para>Labor's response to inflation is to ask everyday people to bear the cost through higher interest rates and higher rents. That is using everyday people as cannon fodder in the war on inflation, leaving the RBA to go and lift up interest rates and keep pushing them up to the point where the housing crisis breaks people. Instead, Labor keeps allowing these big corporations to profiteer, price gouge and put everyday people further into pain.</para>
<para>There's an alternative way of tackling this massive cost-of-living crisis that we've got, and that is to make these big corporations start paying tax, to step in and stop the price gouging—make the price gouging illegal—and to use the money that we raise from making these big corporations and billionaires pay tax to make everyday people's lives better by doing things like putting dental into Medicare or making child care free. That's how you tackle the inflation, cost-of-living and inequality crises without throwing everyday people to the wolves in the way that Labor is at the moment. But it requires guts. It means the Prime Minister has to stop donning Coles vests and, instead, take on Coles and Woolworths, make them stop price gouging and make price gouging illegal. Instead of sidling up to the big corporations and the billionaires and going to their birthday parties and their lavish anniversary functions, start making the big corporations and billionaires pay tax, and use that money to make everyday people's lives better. Use the power of government to step in and stop rents soaring to the point where no-one can afford them, stop the price gouging that's fuelling these massive profits of Coles and Woolworths, and stop the banks making billions of dollars in profits off the back of high mortgage rates that everyday people are struggling to afford. A government has to step in and stop letting these big corporations off the hook, because it is breaking people.</para>
<para>Housing in this country is rigged. It's no longer just a housing crisis but a housing catastrophe. Yet Labor cannot even bring themselves to say the words 'housing crisis' or 'rental crisis'. They won't help renters, they make mortgage holders pay more and more, and they give wealthy property investors an unfair advantage over first home buyers when it comes to buying a home. When 75 per cent of all Labor MPs, including the Prime Minister himself, are landlords, you understand what's going on. How's that for self-interest straight after they gave themselves a $4½-thousand-a-year tax cut? If you can't buy at the moment then you have to rent. But, with rents skyrocketing out of control, people are choosing between paying rent and putting food on the table, or they're ending up sleeping in their cars and in tents because they can't find an affordable rental. All the while, Labor gloats about a surplus. Meanwhile, back in Victoria, we've got Labor selling off land earmarked for public housing to the highest bidders—to property developers. There are 120,000 Victorians on the public housing waiting list in the midst of the worst housing crisis we've seen, yet they're lining their pockets rather than building homes for people. It is disgraceful.</para>
<para>Just like the classic landlord special of painting over the light fitting or the window handle to cut corners, Labor's housing plan does nothing but paint over the cracks without addressing the pressures that are causing the cracks in the first place. If you're sick of this system and you want change, you can't keep voting for the same old two parties and expecting a different result.</para>
<para>The Greens are fighting for renters, for mortgageholders and for people who want to buy their first home. We want to freeze rent increases, give people lower rate mortgages and make housing more affordable by ending those billions in tax breaks which load the deck in favour of wealthy property investors. We know that this won't happen overnight, but nothing changes if nothing changes. The first step is to vote for someone who will fight for you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To be honest, I'm a little bit surprised that there aren't any government speakers on this motion to take note of the 2024-25 budget papers. It's been left to the Greens leader—the member for Melbourne—and me to talk about this important topic. It is important because the budget is the economic framework which determines economic activity, which determines how businesses and household budgets are shaped into the future. There were some sentences in the member for Melbourne's speech which would resonate, but the difficulty is that the Greens are not part of the solution; in fact, they are a part of the problem.</para>
<para>Let me tell you: the Greens want to take this country down a path of social instability, a path lacking societal cohesion. I really worry that the Greens may get more seats in inner city suburbs. I've always said that the worst Labor member is always going to be better than the best Greens member because the policies that the Greens put forward are absolutely nutty.</para>
<para>The Greens leader spoke about the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths. I'll just say this: the Nationals and, now, the Liberals are putting forward a divestiture policy and plan which has some positivity about it. To be fair, many young people, when they go for their first full-time job—in regional areas, in particular—often present a curriculum vitae which includes stacking shelves and working check-outs at one of the big supermarkets. Coles and Woolworths employ many people, particularly in regional Australia.</para>
<para>When I was the Minister for Small Business, I had the privilege to go to Melbourne to attend a dinner where Coles hosted small-business operators from around the country and handed out awards to the best of those. Those businesses would not have had the opportunity to put their stock, their goods and the endeavours of their hard work on national supermarket shelves if it weren't for Coles—the case with Woolworths is similar— and owed those supermarkets for that opportunity. It's easy to kick, and kick hard, when the pile on is happening. We've seen it with banks, and we've seen it now with the big duopoly.</para>
<para>I would suggest that people make sure they look at FoodWorks, IGA and other independent grocers when considering where to buy their groceries, but it's true that grocery prices are up. The member for Melbourne was right when he said that. In fact, food has gone up 11 per cent since the Albanese government took over in May 2022. It's not just the price of food that has increased. Health costs are up 11 per cent. Education costs are up 11 per cent and housing costs are up 15 per cent.</para>
<para>I listened carefully to the Greens leader's contribution, and I reiterate: they are part of the problem in Melbourne, his home state. The Jacinta Allan government doesn't want gas in new homes; it doesn't want gas full stop. It is trying to ban the logging industry. What are we going to build homes with? It's hard enough to get the metal joists and the metal brackets for homes, which are often imported, with the Greens' mad policies of jacking up the price of power and jacking up the prices of everything else. How does a new homebuyer get into the market? It's almost impossible. Then we have his offsider, the member for Brisbane, running around suggesting that it's all the Commonwealth's problem. In fact, a large lot of it has to do with development applications at local government level and with social housing, which is—or always was—the remit of state governments, and yet the member for Brisbane makes out: 'Vote for me. It's all going to be changed, because I will change it.' When the Prime Minister dresses him down in parliament for that very fact, I tend to agree with the leader of the country.</para>
<para>Under this Labor government, rent is up 15 per cent and finance and insurance are up 17 per cent. Electricity has increased 22 per cent since May 2022. And here we had a prime minister, prior to being elected, saying on no less than 97 occasions that he was going to put in place a $275 cut to power bills and that prices would be lower under a Labor government than what was happening under the coalition. It was all a folly. It was just a lure to get votes, and it was misplaced. Ask anyone whether they're paying more now than what they were under the coalition government and the resounding answer will be: yes, they are. People are poorer. Gas is up 25 per cent. How do household budgets, industry, farms, factories and small business afford such cost increases?</para>
<para>The 2024-25 budget handed down by the member for Rankin was an election sweetener, and not a very good one. We see the fact that no Labor members are coming in to defend it. No Labor members are out there promoting it, and why would they? Why would you promote a dead, stinking cat? That is basically what it is. It is not providing hope. It is not providing a future or a vision for this country, certainly not for those workers that the once-proud Labor Party stood for. No, it's not the case.</para>
<para>Regional, rural and remote Australians have missed out again. It's only the Liberals and the Nationals who look out for them, thanks to the member for Dickson's fantastic budget-in-reply speech. Not only was it a very good speech on his feet on the floor of parliament, but his speech at a function later that night was one of the best examples of having a vision for this country from opposition that I have had the privilege of listening to, and I've heard a few.</para>
<para>Labor, we know, have stayed true to their ethos—that is, spin, bereft of substance, particularly for those in rural and regional Australia. I really worry about irrigation communities. Those river communities, I might add, grow the food and the fibre that put the breakfast, lunch and dinner on our plates and the clothes on our backs, not just for this country but for many others too. I really worry for those people, those hard-working farmers. In the budget papers, the amount of money to be spent on water buybacks was marked NFP: not for publication. That is a great disturbing element for our farmers, because they know not how much water will be bought out of those communities—Deniliquin, Griffith, Hillston, Coleambally, Leeton, Narrandera and all the rest. The concern there is not just for farmers. They'll get the big cheque. The market will be distorted. The price will go up because of the Commonwealth entering the water buying. What will happen, though, is that the local hairdresser, the cafe and the schools will all suffer because there are fewer people and less economic activity in those communities. Labor uses the guise of doing it for the environment. They have taxpayer funded ads on the television, and people in regional Australia get quite insulted by the ads saying they're not good stewards of the environment. That is the inference in these advertisements.</para>
<para>Even the supposed tax cuts that Labor is putting in—it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. They're taking with one hand and then giving just a little bit back with the other. They call it a tax cut, but they are promoting it via a huge multimillion dollar advertisement splurge. It's not necessary. It is just a waste of money. They'd be better off spending it on regional health and regional education. Goodness knows—if you looked at the NAPLAN figures this morning, a third of children are unable to read or write at an acceptable level. And then you've got television spruiking Labor's budget. It wasn't a good budget. It simply wasn't a good budget. It was a typical Labor budget. Labor is always about the politics, always about the re-election tactics, never about the outcomes and the people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:4 1</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>