I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This legislation will strengthen the Reserve Bank's independence, clarify its mandate, and modernise its structures.

By introducing it today we are recognising that strong economic institutions are central to a strong economy.

That's why, over the course of the last 18 months, we've been reforming and renewing and refocusing our economic institutions in a considered and methodical way—to ensure they are fit for purpose and in the best position to manage the challenges and maximise the opportunities in front of us.

This bill is an important part of that work.

These reforms are the biggest undertaken at the Reserve Bank in over three decades.

They follow months and months of consultation, including with the RBA, with the opposition and with other stakeholders, internal and external, and much welcome public debate since the release of the Reserve Bank review in April 2023.

The review itself was the product of extensive consultation that included current and former RBA board members and staff, international experts, academics and others.

This bill is our opportunity to reform and renew the monetary policy and governance framework of the RBA to ensure it works in the interests of the Australian people and in the interests of their economy.

The main components of this bill are all about: reinforcing the RBA's independence; clarifying its role, including the dual mandate of price stability and full employment; and modernising its structure, including by establishing two new boards, one for setting interest rates and the other for governance.

RBA independence

The bill reinforces the RBA's independence by repealing the government's ability to override the bank's monetary policy decisions.

This will strengthen the RBA's monetary policy independence and the credibility of its framework, while the bank remains accountable to parliament for its performance and how it exercises its powers, including setting monetary policy.

C larifying the role of the RBA

In clarifying the RBA's role, the bill mandates that the overarching objective for the bank is 'to promote the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia, both now and into the future'.

This means legislating the dual mandate of price stability and full employment, to make sure the RBA is working in the interests of the country and its people—and recognising the crucial role the RBA plays in promoting financial stability.

M odernising the RBA 's structure

To bring the RBA's structure into the 21st century the bill establishes a separate and specialised Monetary Policy Board to determine monetary policy—including the setting of interest rates.

The new board retains the same structure as the current RBA board and will comprise the governor (as chair), deputy governor, Secretary to the Treasury and six external members appointed by the Treasurer.

Carving out this responsibility from the day-to-day management of the bank will improve accountability and transparency in the bank's monetary policy decision-making.

It will give the board the breadth and depth of experience and expertise needed to make the best decisions in the interest of the economy and the country.

The Monetary Policy Board will be guided by the new Statement on the Conduct of Monetary Policy, supplementing the Reserve Bank Act. I'm working with the Reserve Bank board at the moment, and we will be releasing the new statement before the end of the year.

It will set out the views of the government and the Reserve Bank on important aspects of monetary policy including the flexible inflation target of two to three per cent.

This will help improve coordination between fiscal, monetary and macroprudential policies.

The bill goes further in modernising the RBA's structure by taking steps to strengthen corporate governance.

It does this in two ways, first, by establishing a new governance board.

This will be comprised of the governor, deputy governor, chief operating officer and six external members, and it will strengthen oversight and management of the bank to better manage risk and drive necessary change.

It will have no role in the bank's monetary, financial stability or payments policy.

The government intends to appoint the RBA governor as the inaugural chair of the governance board, to ensure continuity as we implement these changes.

But the bill allows any member of the governance board to be appointed chair, which will ensure flexibility for future governments.

Second, the governance board will replace the governor as the Reserve Bank's accountability authority, so that a board, rather than an individual has collective responsibility for corporate governance, bringing the RBA in line with most other corporate Commonwealth entities.

The changes outlined in the bill will commence around the middle of next year and members of the existing Reserve Bank board will be asked to serve the remainder of their terms on one of the new boards, for continuity during the transition.

We have undertaken deep and thorough consultation in the development of this bill, and I want to acknowledge and thank in particular the members of the RBA review panel for their work as well and everyone who took part who made considered and thoughtful submissions and contributions to this process.

The Reserve Bank has been a critical economic institution in this country for more than six decades.

The changes outlined in this bill make sure that the setting of monetary policy is done effectively now and into the future as well, equipping the bank to serving Australia effectively in an increasingly complex and challenging economic environment.

The changes are about ensuring we have the right economic institutions and the right frameworks in place, to support a stronger economy and a better future.

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

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005to introduce a prominence framework for connected TV devices and reform the antisiphoning scheme.

These measures implement two key election commitments of the Albanese government—to support access to local TV services and free sports coverage in the streaming era—and mark a significant step in bringing the regulatory framework for media services in Australia into the 21st century.

In November last year, the government affirmed its intent to undertake media reform and modernise the regulatory framework in a systematic and sensible way that can be built upon in future years.

The measures contained in the bill represent two immediate priorities for this program of work and will support a strong local media industry and enable all Australians to engage in social, economic and cultural life and participate in democratic processes. Strong local media outlets are vital in achieving these outcomes.

Free-to-air broadcasting services bring communities together, with sports coverage, local information and emergency broadcasts. They keep Australians informed through news and current affairs and support our democratic institutions. And they tell Australian stories with the creative sector and provide a trusted source of entertainment for all Australians, including children. But their ability to fulfil these roles is under threat.

The Australian media sector faces more competition than ever, with a swathe of new online services entering the market over the past decade. Australians are embracing the ability to consume a range of media content at times and on devices of their choosing.

However, our free-to-air broadcasters are not competing on a level playing field. They continue to be subject to the bulk of the obligations to deliver important public policy outcomes while their online competitors are not. This dynamic is putting important public policy outcomes at risk.

The introduction of a prominence framework and reforms to modernise the antisiphoning scheme will help to address this imbalance and make real progress in bringing online services into Australia's media regulatory framework. These amendments will promote consumer and citizen access and choice, and help support a strong and sustainable media industry.

Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act to implement a legislated prominence framework for connected TV devices.

This new framework—comprising a new part 9E of the Broadcasting Services Act—will promote access to certain broadcasting services and broadcasting video-on-demand services that are made available free to Australian audiences and users.

Over the last decade there has been a fundamental transition in the TV market in Australia. Free-to-air television broadcasting services now exist as one of many content options on connected TV interfaces, and are becoming increasingly difficult for consumers to find. Research has shown that a significant portion of the Australian population lacks the skills and knowledge to install and engage with these services on newer devices.

There is also a change in the way content services are made available on TV interfaces. The space on the home screens of connected TV devices is increasingly being monetised, with the positioning and placement of services often dependent on the payment of fees or other consideration. There is a material risk that free-to-air television broadcasters will be crowded out by the larger, international services operating in the Australian market.

In order for the free-to-air broadcasting sector to continue to support the achievement of important policy objectives, it is imperative that their services are easily available to audiences on the devices that are commonly used to access TV content. This is precisely what the prominence framework aims to do.

The key element of the new framework will be a requirement for a manufacturer of a regulated television device to adhere to a set of minimum prominence requirements. Manufacturers will be prohibited from supplying a non-compliant device, and must take reasonable steps to ensure the device continues to comply with the requirements, subject to a number of limitations.

Regulated television devices will comprise domestic reception equipment that is capable of connecting to the internet and receiving broadcasting video-on-demand services, where that equipment is designed for the primary purpose of facilitating the viewing of audiovisual content. This definition has been designed to include devices that are predominantly used for TV viewing, while excluding devices that may technically be used to do so but where this is a secondary function, such as computer monitors or screens, laptops, tablets and mobile phones.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority may make guidelines in relation to whether particular kinds of equipment are regulated television devices and will have power to determine, via legislative instrument, whether specific equipment is or is not a regulated television device. This will be an important circuit-breaker in the circumstance where it is unclear whether a particular device would be a regulated television device.

Regulated television services will be the linear broadcast television services provided by the national broadcasters or by commercial and community television broadcasting licensees and certain broadcasting video-on-demand services provided by free-to-air television broadcasters. Broadcasting video-on-demand services are those that make audiovisual content available on demand for free using a listed carriage service. The Minister for Communications will have a power to determine, via legislative instrument, that a specified service is or is not a regulated television service.

The minimum prominence requirements will be specified through regulations, and the government intends to release an exposure draft of these regulations to support the parliament's consideration of the framework as a whole.

These regulations would operate as a 'must-carry' framework, ensuring that audiences throughout Australia are able to access free-to-air television services. Pending the outcome of the consultation process, it is intended that the regulations would prescribe that regulated television devices must, among other matters:

The regulations would not prescribe the exact position of tiles, tabs or links on the primary user interface nor prevent them from occupying a different position on the primary user interface from time to time.

The use of subordinate legislation to specify these requirements will allow them to be adjusted over time to accommodate changes in technology and consumer preferences. This will be particularly important given the rapid rate of change in the TV market in terms of technologies and consumer preferences.

Manufacturers will be prevented from requiring a regulated television service provider to pay a fee, charge or any other form of consideration for or in connection with the device complying with the minimum prominence requirements.

Manufacturers will also be prevented from altering or interfering with the audiovisual content provided by a regulated television service. For example, device manufacturers would be prevented from inserting their own advertising into a broadcasting video-on-demand service provided by a commercial television broadcasting licensee. This won't prevent device manufacturers from charging free-to-air broadcasters for a level of prominence or promotion of content over and above the minimum prominence requirements. But it will guarantee that regulated television devices carry these services at no charge.

The framework will commence the day after the act receives royal assent, enabling regulations and any relevant guidance and determinations to be made well ahead of the application of the scheme to regulated television devices. To this end, the framework will only apply to a regulated television device that is manufactured 18 months after the commencement of the framework, and is supplied on or after this date. This application provision acknowledges and accommodates the lead times associated with the design, development, manufacture and distribution of electronic goods, which typically involve global supply chains.

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act to modernise the antisiphoning scheme, which has been in place for close to 30 years.

The scheme promotes free access to televised coverage of nationally important and culturally significant events. It currently does this by preventing subscription television broadcast licensees from acquiring a right to televise an event on the antisiphoning list unless a free-to-air television broadcaster has a right.

A comprehensive review of the scheme and the list has been undertaken by government over the past year, and this has involved successive phases of stakeholder and public consultation. The review found that the objective of the scheme—to support free access to televised coverage of events of national importance and cultural significance—remains appropriate, but that the scheme needs to be broadened to incorporate online services.

Streaming services are not currently subject to the scheme, and there is no legal impediment to them acquiring the rights to iconic sporting events ahead of local free-to-air broadcasters. As a result of this regulatory gap, there is a latent but material risk that the rights to iconic sports will be siphoned exclusively behind online paywalls, as has occurred overseas.

This would be a poor outcome for Australian audiences. Many would simply be unable to afford to pay for coverage of the sports they've traditionally viewed for free. Even if coverage were to be provided online for free (without explicit charge, such as a subscription fee), a small but significant portion of Australians either don't have access to, or cannot afford to access, online services in the form of charges for broadband and mobile services.

All Australians, regardless of where they live or what they earn, should have the opportunity to enjoy free TV coverage of iconic sporting events. These are events that create shared experiences, foster a sense of collective Australian identity and contribute to grassroots community-based sports participation. The reforms to the antisiphoning scheme seek to further these outcomes.

Modelled on the existing scheme, the bill modifies the rule that governs the acquisition of the rights to events on the list. This rule will prevent media content service providers (other than free-to-air television broadcasters) from acquiring a right to provide coverage of an event on the list to audiences in Australia until a free-to-air broadcaster has acquired a right to televise the event on a broadcasting service. This would extend the scope of the restriction on the acquisition of rights under the current scheme, which only applies to subscription television broadcasting licensees.

This modified rule affirms free-to-air broadcasting services as the 'safety net' for delivering the objective of free access to televised coverage of sporting events to all Australians. This doesn't mean that online coverage of iconic sporting events is unimportant. Market trends are clear, and online coverage of these events will play an increasing role in the overall coverage of sporting events over time. However, the availability of coverage online does not equate to access to coverage online. There are a range of implicit costs and impediments associated with accessing content online—such as internet access charges, the costs of reception equipment or devices, or any requirement to have an account with the service—that mean the platform is not able to fully support the free coverage objective of the scheme in the near to medium term.

The arrangements for making the antisiphoning list and removing events from the list are, in substance, the same as the current scheme, with one exception. The new scheme would extend the automatic delisting period from six months to 12 months. The automatic delisting arrangements enable parties other than free-to-air broadcasters to acquire rights where a free-to-air broadcaster hasn't done so under the protection of the scheme. As the rights to iconic sporting events are typically acquired more than 12 months before they take place, it is appropriate to better align the automatic delisting period with this commercial reality. Events can be retained on the list where the minister is satisfied that at least one commercial television broadcasting licensee or a national broadcaster has not had a reasonable opportunity to acquire the rights to televise the event concerned.

Alongside the reforms to the scheme in the bill, the government is also proposing to amend the list in order to modernise it and bring it into line with contemporary community expectations. To date, the list has not included sports that involve athletes with disability. To a lesser extent, it has also tended to involve competitions in which men compete. This is a product of history and the evolution of competitions and coverage, rather than deliberate design. Nonetheless, there is a case to consider the composition of the list with respect to women's sports events and Para-sports.

The government commenced this modernisation process earlier this year, by providing equivalent listing of the FIFA World Cup—the men's tournament—and the FIFA Women's World Cup. This listing will enhance the likelihood of Australians being able to watch the Matildas for free in future FIFA Women's World Cup tournaments.

The government will publish an exposure draft of a new list to aid the parliament's consideration of the anti-siphoning framework as a whole. The draft list would retain the composition of the current list, and would include men's and women's international rugby league, rugby union, cricket and soccer matches that involve a senior Australian representative team. It would also include a number of additional events:

These additions will ensure the consistent and inclusive treatment of nationally important and culturally significant events regardless of the gender or the disability status of the athletes competing in them.

The reformed scheme will commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation, and no later than six months from the day the act receives royal assent. It is intended that the new list will commence at the same time as the revised scheme.

Contravention of the minimum prominence requirements and the anti-siphoning scheme will be civil penalty provisions, subject to the greater of a maximum of 10,000 penalty units, three times the value of the benefit obtained as a result of the contravention, or two per cent of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the last 12 months. These are significant penalties. However, they are commensurate with the entities involved, and are comparable to similar civil penalty provisions in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The ACMA will have the capacity to utilise its graduated enforcement framework in overseeing both frameworks, including remedial directions and enforceable undertakings. The regulator will have the power to obtain information and documents relevant to monitoring compliance with the new arrangements and its functions, and the Minister for Communications will have a power to request specific reports from the ACMA on matters relevant to TV prominence or anti-siphoning.

Both frameworks will be subject to review: the prominence framework after three years of its operation; and the reformed anti-siphoning scheme after five years of operation. These reviews will assess the operation, effectiveness and implications of the respective frameworks, including any subordinate legislation.

These two measures are key components of the government's overall media reform program. Our goal for reform is clear. The government is committed to a strong and sustainable media sector that keeps us informed, reflects our diverse cultures and perspectives, upholds and respects community standards, and provides equitable access to services for all Australians irrespective of where they live or what they earn.

Among other matters, this means a level playing field: one in which Australian media outlets can thrive while maintaining Australia's well-earned reputation as a desirable place to invest and grow new businesses. The introduction of a prominence framework and reforms to the anti-siphoning scheme will help to foster that environment.

The prominence framework will enable Australian consumers to access free-to-air television services, with minimal input, effort or capability on the part of the consumer. It will also have positive flow-on impacts for the local broadcasting industry, without imposing unreasonable or unintended burdens on the manufacturers of regulated television devices.

The reforms to the antisiphoning scheme and list will mitigate the risks of the coverage of listed events migrating behind paywalls, or consumers otherwise facing additional costs to access this content. This will be a positive reform for Australian sports fans, as it will enhance the likelihood of live and free coverage of listed events.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

CLARE (—) (): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia accounts for only 0.3 per cent of the world's population, but we do three per cent of global research.

We make an outsized contribution to global knowledge—about 10 times what you'd expect looking at our population alone.

Pound for pound we're one of the most important contributors to global knowledge and innovation.

Australian research has literally changed the world.

And a key part of that is the work done by the Australian Research Council.

The ARC plays a unique role in this country.

It supports basic and applied research across all disciplines except medical research.

No other agency does this.

And it does this to the tune of more than $895 million in research grants this financial year.

That funding supports more than 5,900 new and ongoing grants.

The ARC doesn't just fund research. It acts as an important safeguard on research integrity. It also provides advice and support to the Australian government on research matters.

And it has a proven track record in nurturing and producing the kind of research and results that keep Australia at the cutting edge of innovation.

And that has an economic benefit too.

According to work done by ACIL Allen, every dollar of National Competitive Grants Program funding administered by the ARC generates more than three dollars of economic output.

That's a return on investment you don't see in many places.

And that return not only supports our economy.

It also enhances our reputation internationally as thinkers and doers, and leaders in research.

Over the last 22 years the ARC has supported the work of brilliant Australians who have repaid that government investment with some extraordinary achievements.

Achievements like bringing the internet to Australia, getting quantum computing off the ground, driving the uptake of solar panels on rooftops here and overseas, and helping the world respond to COVID-19.

But in those 22 years, neither the ARC nor the legislation that underpins it had been comprehensively reviewed.

And that legislation hasn't kept up with the times.

In 2001, when the ARC was established the hottest new consumer technology was the Apple iPod.

Facebook and YouTube didn't exist.

The mapping of the human genome was still in the 'working draft' phase.

For most people connection to the world wide web started with unplugging your landline and waiting for that weird cacophony of connection sounds.

And we only had four Star Wars movies.

That's how long it's been.

That's how much we've changed.

That's two decades spent without lifting the hood on the ARC legislation to see what's working and what we might do better, and what we need to do to protect the independence of our research sector.

The fact is in recent times the ARC has been bedevilled by political interference and ministerial delays.

At least four of my predecessors have interfered on at least six occasions during the former government to upend the independent peer review process.

Interference and delays make it harder for universities to recruit and retain staff, and it damages our international reputation.

That's not good for our universities, and it's not good for business either who want to work with our universities.

And that's why last year I appointed Professor Margaret Sheil AO, Professor Susan Dodds and Professor Mark Hutchinson to conduct the first comprehensive review of the ARC Act.

Their terms of reference were broad.

I wanted the review team to have a really close look at this and tell us what needs to be done to make the ARC fit for today's research environment and prepare it for tomorrow's.

To consult widely.

To speak to people across the research ecosystem. Researchers. University and other higher education providers. Traditional knowledge owners. Research organisations here and overseas. Industry groups. Peak Bodies. And government.

This they did and I want to sincerely thank them for that work here today. In April I received the review team's report.

They concluded that we need to strengthen the ARC's governance arrangements.

To bolster its independence.

To get the politics out of it.

To end the days of ministers vetoing things they didn't like the title of.

Professor Sheil and the review team made 10 recommendations and in August I announced that the government agreed or agreed in principle to all of them.

I have already requested the ARC to commission work to implement three of them.

They are: (1) that we help universities attract and retain talented academics through meaningful fellowships and promoting academic careers in research; (2) that we advance the support for Indigenous Australian academics through better consultation and additional fellowships; (3) that we encourage more consultation between the ARC and stakeholders in the academic and research community.

That work is already underway.

A fourth recommendation concerning the evaluation of excellence, impact and research capacity within Australian universities is being considered as part of the Australian Universities Accord.

The remaining six recommendations require legislative amendments and they are addressed in this bill which amends the ARC Act.

The bill amends the objects of the act so that they clearly define the important role and place of the ARC in supporting Australia's research community.

The bill also establishes an ARC Board as the accountable authority of the ARC. This was recommended by the review team to strengthen the independence and integrity of the ARC.

The board will be appointed by the minister and the bill includes eligibility requirements to ensure that members are appropriately qualified, with the majority of members to have substantial experience or expertise in one or more fields of research, or in the management of research.

The board will also include a First Nations person, and a regional, rural and remote representative, and be supported by an ongoing ARC Advisory Committee with expertise across research, industry and governance.

The board will appoint the ARC's chief executive officer, and approve the appointment of members to board committees, including the College of Experts.

Importantly, the board will approve research grants under the National Competitive Grants Program.

This is one of the critical changes recommended by the review. Under the existing act, these decisions are made by the minister.

Every decision. On thousands of grants.

Over time this has allowed for political interference to seep into what should be an independent, peer reviewed process aimed at expanding our nation's knowledge base.

The establishment of the board as the approving body will get the politics out of this.

It re-establishes peer review as the driving principle in grant approvals.

Peer review is the accepted world standard for achieving quality in research grant outcomes. International collaboration and credibility also rely on having access to resources on a merit basis.

The reforms in this bill will send a strong signal that the government supports research selection processes that are based on research excellence and sound due diligence.

Some important powers are retained by the minister in the bill.

The minister will be responsible for setting the funding rules to be followed by the board in making grant decisions. These funding rules will be a disallowable legislative instrument.

This will safeguard against future ministers attempting to use the ARC as a political plaything without the oversight of the parliament.

The minister will also retain powers to approve funding for nationally significant investments.

This is not about individual research grants, but investing in projects which can drive research, infrastructure, training and collaboration. The machinery and the engine rooms of research.

Projects like the ARC Centres for Excellence, Industrial Transformation Training Centres, and Industrial Transformation Research Hubs. Other designated research programs may be specified by the minister through a disallowable legislative instrument.

The minister will also have the power to direct the board not to approve a grant or to terminate funding for a grant and where appropriate require repayment, based on national security grounds.

When that happens, the minister must notify the parliament and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The ARC's annual report will specify the number of times that these powers have been exercised.

Finally, the bill replaces the special appropriation arrangements for the ARC's administered funding with annual appropriation arrangements, providing funding visibility for the sector.

Can I again thank Professors Sheil, Hutchinson and Dodds for the mountain of work they did in conducting this review, and can I thank Dr John Byron and Dr Natalie Jones-Jayasinghe for their stellar work in supporting them.

Their collective commitment to this task, their wisdom and their deep expertise have been invaluable.

Can I also thank the ARC CEO Judi Zielke and her team for the important work they have done and the work they are doing now with my department to implement the review's recommendations.

As a nation we are rightly proud of our reputation in research, and the measures in this bill will help support the discoveries and innovations of the future.

They will modernise the ARC, strengthen it and build more trust in it so it can continue to spur innovation and catalyse productivity in the years ahead.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia federated for a better future for our people.

This bill backs the Federation and ensures we are best placed to meet our shared challenges.

In 1900, Australians 'agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth'.

The arguments for cooperation were as strong in 1900 as they are today.

As The Commonwealth League in Adelaide argued in 1898:

'To give better opportunities to our children';

'To promote the prosperity of Australia'; and

'To develop resources, trade and manufactures'.

Western Australia was the last state to agree.

They were urged to 'Complete the union by voting YES'.

And they did.

Ever since, this parliament has acted to ensure the Commonwealth, states and territories collaborate and learn from each other.

Close and ongoing cooperation between governments is also critical to driving policy reform nationally.

The federal system is the backbone to critical services such as education, health care and environmental protection, all of which require strong collaboration between the Commonwealth and states and territories.

Mechanisms for intergovernmental cooperation and interaction have changed over the years.

Prior to Federation, the 1890 Australasian Federal Conference and subsequent Australasian federal conventions hosted the premiers of Australian colonies.

The 1891 Federal Convention spent some five weeks discussing and writing a draft constitution.

This became the basis for the Constitution we have today.

Subsequent conventions would continue to debate changes over nine years.

Significant topics of contention were tariffs and defence.

Tariffs provided the colonial governments with much revenue but they restricted trade and movement between the colonies.

Following Federation, all duties on intra-Australian trade were abolished and a common external tariff was imposed.

Our domestic economy is forever stronger for the removal of intra-Australian duties.

Prior to Federation, the colonies were ill-equipped to defend themselves.

Each colony had its own militia consisting of a small permanent force and volunteers.

It was clear that this created major vulnerabilities to threats from other nations with larger populations and military forces.

The colonies knew a united defence force could better protect Australia.

They called for naval and military forces to be constitutionally enshrined.

An air force was a few years off.

On 1 January 1901 and every day since, the six colonies of Australia, and the people they serve, have benefited from Federation.

In the years following, there were sporadic premiers' conferences, the first being in November 1901.

It was clear these meetings were not suitable for detailed policy discussions.

It was during the First World War that the conference played a pivotal role, delivering agreement on substantially uniform financial and employment support for returned soldiers.

Premiers' conferences were then largely replaced by meetings between Commonwealth and state ministers after 1929.

Then, as Curtin and Chifley prepared to 'win the peace', the first Commonwealth State Housing Agreement was delivered in 1945.

This provided funding for the construction of new dwellings and formed the basis of our modern social housing system.

These specialist meetings evolved again into ministerial councils and forums.

Then the 1970s gave Australia the idea of 'New Federalism', passionately argued by then opposition leader EG Whitlam in the 1971 Australian Quarterly.

Malcolm Fraser also adopted his own version of 'New Federalism'.

Come 1990, Bob Hawke instigated a number of special premiers conferences to help deliver his government's microeconomic reforms.

These conferences resulted in COAG, the structure that existed until the pandemic.

The formation of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 1992 was described by Prime Minister Keating as:

'quite an historic event' … 'it will be a useful forum for debating matters of national moment'.

He continued it would ensure:

'that premiers in all states at the one time are all part of the same conversation and know which way the system is moving'.

COAG itself had a number of noteworthy achievements:

COAG also responded rapidly to significant global events to determine a national approach.

In 2005, COAG reconsidered counterterrorism arrangements following transport bombings in London.

In 2009, COAG drove consideration of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan in response to the global financial crisis.

National Cabinet was established on 13 March 2020, initially in response to the need for enhanced collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states on the COVID-19 pandemic.

National Cabinet's focus has since shifted to progress shared reform and priorities for the nation.

Notable achievements of National Cabinet during this time include:

Housing has also been a particular focus for National Cabinet, delivering agreement in August 2023 to an ambitious new national target to build 1.2 million new well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024.

This is supported by:

National Cabinet must continue to meet the expectations of the Australian people, to work for Australia, to address matters quickly, based on advice from experts, with leaders outlining the priorities and parameters for their governments to implement.

All of us must ensure that Australia's federal structure continues to deliver intelligent cooperation on issues of strategic national significance.

The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to prepare our Federation for the future.

First, the bill reflects the cessation of COAG.

The bill will update the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008, renaming the fund as the Federation Reform Fund.

The renaming of the COAG Reform Fund will be reflected in other legislation where it occurs.

Second, the bill will replace references to 'COAG' with 'First Ministers' Council' where it occurs in legislation, inserting a definition which ensures that the decisions of first ministers will stand no matter the name of the forum.

The First Ministers' Council will mean 'a body (however described) that consists only of, or that includes, the following:

Third, to reflect the establishment of a new architecture for federal-state relations, the bill seeks to update language around ministerial councils and forums.

Specifically, where relevant acts include the term 'ministerial council', the bill will change the definition to mean a 'body (however described)' that consists of:

For example, references to the 'Standing Council on Health' in the National Health Reform Act 2011 would be substituted with 'ministerial council'.

The Australian Federation has delivered significant benefit to the Australian people.

It is central to our work for Australia and to delivering policy that improves the lives of all Australians.

Following the cessation of COAG, National Cabinet has been at the forefront of leading these reforms.

Therefore, the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 is an important step to update these outdated references.

This bill builds on the history of coordination and cooperation which began prior to Federation.

I thank Commonwealth ministers for agreeing to these changes and I note that following this bill's passage, states and territories will look to adopt necessary measures through their own legislation.

Thirty years ago Prime Minister Keating spoke of the 'great promise' of continued and consistent intergovernmental relations.

This bill helps to ensure we keep that promise.

I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

I move amendments (1) to (6) standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 248, page 126 (lines 3 to 5), omit "A digital labour platform means an online enabled application, website or system operated to arrange, allocate or facilitate the provision of labour services", substitute "A digital labour platform means an online enabled application, website or system to the extent that it is operated to arrange, allocate or facilitate the provision of government funded labour services".

(2) Schedule 1, item 248, page 126 (line 18), after "system", insert ", to the extent that it relates to the provision of government funded labour services, ".

(3) Schedule 1, item 248, page 126 (after line 28), at the end of section 15L, add:

(5) In this section:

government funded labour services means labour services funded directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth or by a State or Territory (whether under a law, agreement or in some other way).

(4) Schedule 1, item 248, page 126 (after line 33), at the end of section 15M, add:

Note: A platform is only a digital labour platform to the extent that it is operated to arrange, allocate or facilitate the provision of government funded labour services (see subsections 15L(1) and (2)).

(5) Schedule 1, item 248, page 127 (lines 10 and 11), omit paragraph 15N(1)(b), substitute:

(b) work that:

(i) is funded directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth or by a State or Territory (whether under a law, agreement or in some other way); and

(ii) is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(6) Schedule 1, item 248, page 127 (after line 11), at the end of subsection 15N(1), add:

Note: For subparagraph (a)(i), a platform is only a digital labour platform to the extent that it is operated to arrange, allocate or facilitate the provision of government funded labour services (see subsections 15L(1) and (2)).

I have already said that I think this bill is taking a radical approach to reforming the Australian workforce. Businesses are concerned, and rightly so, that something as important as changes to industrial relations is being rushed through. We are all experiencing higher costs of living, including small businesses, and there are over 28,000 of them in my electorate of Fowler.

A small business in my electorate of Fowler told me recently that they are doing it tough, as they're squeezed on both fronts as a consumer and as a supplier of goods and services. They're a pastry shop, and they have had the supply cost of icing sugar increase by 43 per cent and jam filling by 41 per cent in the past two years to September 2023. In the same period, they were only to increase their prices by 11 per cent to partially recover these increases. They're also seeing an increase in insurance premiums, which had the third-highest inflation increased 8.6 per cent. Many residents are taking risks as they cannot afford insurance, and businesses are not taking out insurance either. The instant asset write-off for small businesses was due to drop from 150K to 1K but was scaffolded with a temporary decrease to 20K for this financial year.

These are some of the challenges my local businesses are experiencing, and now this bill will add layers of complications to running a business. I understand that the minister has been in small business. But running businesses today, with the increased costs of wages, ingredients, insurance, rent and the delivery of goods, just to name a few, is far different to running a small business decades ago or even pre COVID.

So how is the government supporting small businesses to thrive and keep the economy running? Over 100 amendments to this bill have been introduced, which demonstrates that much work still needs to be done in getting this legislation right. The Australian workforce is complex and vast, and I strongly believe that the government should deal with each sector separately, giving it the time and attention that the legislation and, more importantly, Australian workers deserve.

My amendments are around the gig economy. It's definitely important to close the loopholes, but it must be done in a balanced and consultative way. People value the convenience of digital platforms, and contractors value the flexibility of the workplace.

So, in my amendment, I ask to look at focusing just on the digital platforms that actually receive government or taxpayer funding. As the minister constantly mentioned, it's about the Mable platform, because the danger for us is that this bill is going to impact all of the other digital platform work. It's a policy that may be perceived as an attack on the commercial arrangements of business owners and the self-employed. The essence of the gig economy is that people can choose to be their own boss and can dictate their own schedule without the intervention of others. Contractors post their services on platforms like Airtasker and Oneflare, and it is free for all to click to engage if they so wish. This is their prerogative.

However, I recognise that the regulation of specific areas of digital platform work may prove beneficial. Mable is one of those sectors. So I ask the government to really consider this with the closing loopholes bill. Because it was rushed through yesterday, obviously many of us in the Independent crossbench haven't had the chance to really study it all, and I don't know if your 100 or so amendments have taken into consideration the digital and gig economy. The focus should be targeted only at the platform that receives all of the taxpayer funding and money.

I want to thank the member for Fowler both for the points that she has raised and for the engagement that has happened with her on this bill and, indeed, on the secure jobs, better pay bill a year ago. On that occasion, I remember, we were able to accept and support the amendment that was put forward by the member for Fowler. On this occasion, we're not, and I'll explain why.

Before I do, I will just say something on the concept, which has been mentioned a few times, of whether this bill is being rushed through. In this term, I think there has been only one bill that has gone through the House more slowly than this one. As to its being rushed through, we have made sure that there was a maximum time for people to be able to debate. We have waited until this week before we got to amendments. Indeed, for the first time I can remember happening, after government amendments were moved we have then waited a day before resuming to try to make sure that there was a better opportunity for people to get through those before they dealt with their own amendments.

As to the different platforms that have been raised, the member for Fowler and I share a view with respect to Mable: there is a direct role there for government funding, and the government funding should not effectively be paid as though it makes its way to the worker and then not make its way to the worker, without there being some minimum standards that would apply to this form of engagement. But the government does also want this to reach other digital platforms—for example, the food delivery and rideshare platforms. If I go back to when we first designed the employee-like policy in opposition, it was very much about platforms like Uber, and not just those platforms but some competitors that were coming in under, such as HungryPanda, because what you have here is forms of work that had always been subject to minimum standards. In the view of the government—and I respect it's a contestable view—people on gig platforms don't technically satisfy the definition of 'employee' but also don't, in fact, satisfy what most people would regard as the criteria for someone running their own business and having control. That's why we wanted to make sure that we didn't interfere with the form of engagement. I use the platforms as well. I expect everybody here does. People want the technology. But the technology should not come at the price of there being no minimum standards for the workers at all.

The amendments that I moved yesterday still kept this applying to those digital platforms that the member for Fowler's amendment would seek to remove. But it might give some comfort to the member for Fowler to know that the amendments yesterday did make some changes that arose directly out of negotiations with Uber, DoorDash and Menulog, to make sure that there was nothing we were doing that could inadvertently change people into employees. The minimum standards won't be all the minimum standards you get in an employment relationship, but to have a situation where there are no minimum standards at all allows a race to the bottom for people who effectively have no power in negotiation who are on the digital platforms.

The minimum standards that are available to an employee include things such as rostering and overtime rates. None of those become available here, but to have some minimum standards and a process in terms of a right to challenge if you're just deactivated overnight and your job is suddenly gone without reasons is something that gig workers have asked for and the platforms are willing to work with, and I want to be able to do that. This amendment would prevent that.

Secondly, the concept of having some minimum hourly rates is something that the gig platforms believe they can work with. The only real study of this was by a Victorian inquiry, which found roughly a $2 an hour difference between what people would get as an employee and what they were getting on these platforms. The difference is modest, but it also stops some other competitors coming through and completely undercutting, effectively shifting us to being a country where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. I respect the arguments that have been put forward by the member for Fowler, but for the reasons I have given we won't be supporting the amendments.

Question negatived.

I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 4 (after table item 24), insert:

(2) Page 230 (after line 3), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A — Other amendments of the Fair Work Act 2009

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Subsection 23(1)

Omit "15 employees", substitute "50 (full-time equivalent) employees".

I rise today to offer amendments to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 as circulated in my name. At the outset, I would like to express my concern about the process followed by the government yesterday in amending the bill. At 11.30 in the morning, the crossbench received 32 pages of government amendments to their bill, accompanied by a 45-page explanatory memorandum. We were then required to vote on those amendments at 6.30 pm. As this rushed time frame did not permit conscientious scrutiny of the amendments for unforeseen consequences or allow for adequate consultation with stakeholders, my decision was therefore to abstain on that vote.

Today I offer an amendment to the bill that addresses the definition of a small business and thus narrows the scope of businesses to which these changes would apply. This is an attempt to mitigate adverse impacts of this bill on small businesses that are doing it extremely tough right now and that are too small to have the human resources capacity to implement the many and complex changes that would be introduced by this bill. Small businesses, as we know, employ 6.8 million Australians, which is just under half the employed workforce in Australia. In New South Wales 45 per cent of the private sector workforce is employed by small businesses. It's clear that the success of small business is absolutely vital to the continued prosperity and wellbeing of the Australian community. So my amendment is to protect small businesses from some of the changes in this legislation.

The government intends to have significant changes in this legislation apply to small businesses with a headcount of 15 people. And that's not 15 full-time-equivalent employees; it means businesses that have an overall employee headcount of 15. If someone works two hours a week as a casual they are included in this headcount. The impact of this is that these very complex industrial relations requirements could apply to my local beach cafe, a business whose owner works ridiculously long hours to serve the local community, provides employment opportunities for local people and hopefully turns a profit. They certainly don't have a human resources department to negotiate these many and complex changes to industrial relations law that are being proposed. It is too much, and it's too much at this moment in time, when small businesses are struggling in the recovery from the COVID shutdowns, struggling with attracting and retaining staff and struggling with enormous cost-of-living pressures, including soaring rents and high power bills. The effect of this constellation of pressures is that, sadly, many businesses are facing the wall, and in Mackellar we have witnessed many small businesses having to close down.

These changes right now are too much. Genuine small businesses should not be caught. So my amendment seeks to change the definition of 'small business' so that only those businesses with at least 50 full-time-equivalent employees will be captured by the government's proposed changes to the industrial relations laws. Having this cut-off so that only businesses with more than 50 full-time employees are affected means that it's more likely that only those businesses that are big enough to have the human resources infrastructure necessary to comply with these industrial relations changes will be impacted—businesses big enough that they might be able to withstand the additional compliance burden imposed by the changes. The impact of those changes will not be the final straw for a struggling cohort of small-business owners.

This is a reasonable and sensible amendment. It seeks to protect small business, which is very possible to do at the same time as raising standards for vulnerable workers. Both ambitions are achievable. So I urge the government and all the House to support this amendment. Thank you.

I thank the member for Mackellar both for the comments that have been made and for the engagement during the course of this debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. I will repeat—and I suspect I will be repeating this after each amendment is moved, regarding the process and the concepts and the views that this is somehow being rushed—that I think there has been only one bill, which was the referendum proposal, that has gone through this House more slowly this term than this one. In terms of a sense of being rushed, I also know of no other situation where, after government amendments were moved, we then waited a day before we got on with amendments.

I appreciate that we are all under time pressure; I respect all of that. But in terms of what is being done to try to make sure that the process is followed—right through to a moment ago, when this debate could have just gone through and we could have stopped the parliament to make sure everybody could be here—I know what it looks like when a bill is rushed. I just find it hard to see that the one that we're taking more slowly than only one other bill in the course of the term meets that criteria. But I respect the pressures that everybody is under. The government won't be supporting the amendment that's been moved. I do respect the member for Mackellar and indeed all the crossbenchers who are present right now. They have a very genuine commitment to small business in their electorates and a very close engagement with those small business. I have no doubt that what is driving these amendments is very much something that they are getting quite specifically from their communities, and they are representing the views of their electorates.

I will explain a couple of things. This amendment, as I understand it, would not simply change the definition of small business with respect to the bill that I have before the House. It would change the definition of small business throughout the whole act. The current way that the Fair Work Commission uses the definition of small business—the 15 employees—does not include casuals. Casuals don't count in the 15; it's permanent employees. To take this to 50 full-time-equivalent employees would effectively mean including a large number of businesses that I don't think anyone could reasonably regard as small. That would have a marginal impact on the bill that I presented in terms of the labour hire loophole, which is the principal one where the small-business exemption applies, but that's only relevant if the host employer has an enterprise agreement, and many of these businesses would not, so they're already effectively excluded.

I don't have the statistics about the number of businesses, because I've only just been presented with this, too—that's the way amendments work in this place. But I suspect that going from 15 employees to 50 full-time-equivalent employees would be a massive change in the number of businesses and certainly the number of workers affected. All of those workers would have a change in their entitlement to unfair dismissal, and all of those workers would have a change to their entitlements with respect to redundancy.

So, I understand exactly, and I don't for one minute pretend that this is anything other than the member for Mackellar representing the electorate of Mackellar very faithfully. But the impact of this is something that the government could not support and will not support. The definition of small business is always a difficult thing. But when you exclude casuals—the concept of 15 employees is something that has been in the act for a long time—the government certainly wouldn't want to be weakening that exemption in any way.

I rise to speak in support of this amendment to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, as proposed by the member for Mackellar. I want to make the point that, from my understanding, small business is defined under the ATO act as a business that has a turnover of less than $10 million a year. The reality of defining a business by what it turns over as opposed to who it employs is something that is long established when it comes to business operating principles in this country. Knowing how much business has evolved over the course of the last three decades and having worked in businesses where I employed 50 or 60 people but my turnover was less than $10 million, I would again say to the government that the definition of small business within this amended legislation is not consistent with the way a business brain runs in terms of its connection to revenue and turnover. I commend the member for bringing forward this amendment to lift the number in the definition from 15 to 50 employees. I would argue that is still a very blunt measure. Just because you employ people, it doesn't mean you have the productivity to go with them. You're not necessarily generating revenue.

I also note that the member for Wentworth had intended to move an amendment that would see the number lifted to 100 employees on the basis, again, of understanding the connection between income, productivity and revenue. While I accept the answer that the minister has just given, I would, on behalf of the small businesses in North Sydney—North Sydney is the third largest business centre in this country—say that it is very true that small- to medium-size businesses are very concerned by this legislation. Those businesses are concerned to understand how they will be defined and captured in it. If they are a garden maintenance business, which may actually have a wide footprint, they will therefore fall into this. They have gardening crews that they send out in groups of three. They don't consider themselves a medium-sized or large business; they consider themselves small. So I echo that here. Assuming the minister's not going to change his stance, as this legislation moves forward into the Senate, I would encourage my colleagues in the Senate and, indeed, the minister's team to please note that, just because it says '15' in the act to date, it doesn't mean the act overall is right. Perhaps, just as this act professes to bring employment standards into line with what is currently expected, one of those actions may be to bring that definition into line. We can't employ people under 20th century conditions when we've moved into the 21st century. So I'd just ask that the minister and his team consider that and that my Senate colleagues argue for it.

I also rise in support of this amendment. I rise in support of this amendment because, having run businesses, I know how difficult it is to run a small business and run a business where you don't have dedicated HR. I think most of the evidence around how businesses operate says that, if you have fewer than 100 employees, you generally don't have a dedicated HR department. I'm afraid that both this bill and other aspects of the work that this bill feeds into and the broader employment structures that we have in this country have so much complexity that a business without a dedicated HR person is in danger of making mistakes unintentionally or not being able to navigate the complexity of the legislation that we so merrily pass in this House. So I urge the government to consider this amendment, because I think it is a sensible amendment. I note that, in the previous bill that we passed at the end of last year, there was a change in the threshold for businesses that were included in this. I also urge that the government consider what it is doing to make it easy for small businesses to continue to employ people. They are the largest employers in this country. They make a huge difference to this country. But I'm concerned that this and subsequent legislation is just making it harder and harder and more complex for our small businesses to do what they want to do, which is to employ fellow Australians.

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

I move amendments (1) to (7) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 73, page 47 (line 28), omit "3 months", substitute "12 months".

(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 48 (line 4), omit "3 months", substitute "12 months".

(3) Schedule 1, item 73, page 49 (line 26), omit "3 months", substitute "12 months".

(4) Schedule 1, item 73, page 49 (line 28), omit "3 months", substitute "12 months".

(5) Schedule 1, item 73, page 51 (line 35), omit "3 months", substitute "12 months".

(6) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (line 10), omit "one or more", substitute "more than one".

(7) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (lines 14 and 15), omit subparagraph 15P(1)(e)(ii), substitute:

(ii) the person receives remuneration (disregarding the kinds of payments covered by paragraphs 16(1)(a) to (e)) below the rate of an employee performing comparable work;

I've thought carefully and extensively about this legislation and have consulted widely within my electorate, with unions and with business. The substantive nature of these amendments is split into three parts, and they are all designed to address what the people who've been approaching me over recent months tell me are problems. I do appreciate the consideration given to me and my staff by the minister and his staff, and also the forbearance in the chamber today, but I will address one of the minister's comments about the lack of time given for the bill more broadly. A lot of time has been given to the bill, but I think that on the crossbench we are agreed that it's several different bills in one bill, so comparing it to a bill that is one bill, when this is a multifaceted bill, is a bit of a furphy.

I understand that the government will not support the amendments, which is disappointing given that they are the result of extensive and detailed stakeholder engagement. In my view, they would all make improvements to this very complex piece of legislation, which is being pushed through the parliament with a level of doubt about many of its provisions.

The first set of amendments addresses an anomaly in the labour hire element of the bill. It would increase the period during which a new worker can be exempt from receiving a protected rate of pay from three months, as in the legislation, to 12 months. That's designed to ensure that employers can use labour hire effectively to meet surge requirements. In my view, and in the view of those I've consulted, three months is too short and too restrictive and would inhibit both employment and investment.

The second set of amendments relates to the classification of an employee-like person as it relates to gig work. Under the legislation, an individual must fulfil just one of three specified criteria: low bargaining power, low pay and low degree of authority. I believe that is too loose to be effective, so the amendment would omit the words 'one or more' and replace them with 'more than one', strengthening this provision on the definition of 'employee-like'.

The final section of my amendments relates to the minimum rate payable to an employee-like person. I want to make sure that gig workers have minimum safety standards and are not subject to exploitation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be shoehorned into something akin to an award arrangement, including, for example, leave entitlements. To do so would remove some of the flexibility that attracts many people to gig work. So the amendment would make it explicit that the rate in the bill refers strictly to base pay, exclusive of any additional compensation. My view is that this cements the desirable flexibility of gig work. Again, thank you to the minister and staff for their engagement, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Thanks to the member for Goldstein for the contribution she just made and for a long period of engagement, both on this bill and on previous legislation. I respect that this is an area of policy that the member for Goldstein has worked on for a long time, including before she arrived in this place.

The government won't be supporting the amendments but I'll just quickly go through a little bit of detail. On the issue of what is the default exemption for the labour hire loophole: the idea of having the three months came out of consultation—indeed, consultation with the crossbench was when that was first raised as a concept. In that consultation the number of three months was put forward, and that's ultimately what's been reflected in the bill. The challenge with the 12-month proposal is simply this: if you go to a 12-month proposal, effectively employers want to use this loophole—and there are very few of them. It's effectively a loophole that only works if you have an enterprise agreement that is well above the award. But, for those in that situation, if you go as long as 12 months it becomes possible for them to effectively cycle through employees for that length of time. The government feels pretty strongly we'd be replacing one loophole with another if we put that in place.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion relating to the National Apology to all Australians Impacted by the Thalidomide Tragedy stands referred to the Federation Chamber.

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

I should also add with respect to the part of the amendment that deals with the gig economy that the additional layer not referred to in the earlier contribution is that people also have to be working on a digital platform. One of the things that we are conscious of here is that we are dealing with a new jurisdiction. We are going beyond the employment relationship in a way that industrial law in Australia hasn't previously. We are wanting to make sure that we give enough flexibility to the commission in dealing with this that we don't simply create a new set of loopholes that a rogue platform provider can find their way around and effectively evade the minimum standards that apply to every other platform. So, while I hear the issue that's been raised on the way it's been structured, we've certainly had good consultation with the gig platforms and we believe that we have found the right balance. That's why it has been left in that form.

I rise in support of the member of Goldstein's amendments. Again, I want to acknowledge the minister in giving his time and further guidance to us as to how these decisions were reached in terms of what form this legislation has taken. I would like to acknowledge again the personal conversations he and I had on this very matter in terms of what was a reasonable period of time for people to be employed in a business under a labour hire agreement before they should be looked at on a broader term.

The only comment I would make, Minister, is that this is containing this to such a short period of time. Three months is not even the retail peak season over Christmas these days. Many Australians would know that we can expect to see Easter eggs on the shelves prior to Christmas because our retail pathways are getting longer and longer. In this context, while I understand and thank the minister for sharing his and his team's thoughts on this, I would, again, respectfully request that the minister and his team consider moving this from three months, if not all the way to 12 months, at least out to six months. I think there are many seasons that go beyond 12 weeks. Let's be clear: that's what we're talking about. It's 12 weeks worth of work. It's 12 weeks at the end of a financial year when a business is trying to get all its records in place. Twelve weeks over Christmas is not the Christmas period. As we are seeing even now, Black Friday was last Friday but sales started two weeks before and my understanding is that it's still going.

While I recognise what the government is trying to do with this amendment, I would ask the team to look at this again to ensure that that definition of three months is consistent with where we find ourselves in our modern-day economic cycles, recognising that sometimes peak teams can be required for up to six months. That doesn't make them permanent employees. They can be released at the end of that six-month period, particularly if there is then a very quiet season on the other side of it, which we often see with seasonal workers.

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

I move amendments (1) to (6), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 8 and 9), omit the table items.

(2) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 12), omit the table item.

(3) Schedule 1, Part 7, page 63 (line 1) to page 69 (line 14), omit the Part.

(4) Schedule 1, Part 10, page 74 (line 1) to page 76 (line 17), omit the Part.

(5) Schedule 1, Division 7, page 221 (line 12) to page 222 (line 18), omit the Division.

(6) Schedule 1, Division 9, page 222 (line 25) to page 223 (line 2), omit the Division.

These amendments propose to remove some parts of the government's bill that extend the reach of union delegates in workplaces. In schedule 1 part 7 the government's bill introduces a series of new rights for union delegates employed in workplaces. This includes any employee acting as a shop steward having uncapped time off for union training; making employers engage with delegates on any matter they wish to raise, even where the matters are fanciful or unrepresentative of the priorities of a majority of employees on site; allowing unions to demand their delegates be given subsidised access to company intranet, office facilities, transport and meeting rooms; and inserting union delegate terms into all modern awards and agreements. My amendments remove these additional union powers. The case has not been made for these changes. They have not been backed by any identified problem to be solved or by specific difficulties experienced by delegates which could not be addressed by working with employers or using the enterprise bargaining system.

Schedule 1 part 10 of the government's bill expands the circumstances in which unions can come onto worksites without prior notice. Usually union officials are required to give 24 hours notice of entry to a worksite. There's already an exemption to this if the Fair Work Commission is reasonably satisfied that giving a workplace advance notice of entry might result in the destruction, concealment or alteration of relevant evidence. The government's bill extends this exemption if an official seeks to investigate underpayments—that is, the union could then enter without notice. I don't want workplaces to underpay employees, and I don't want workplaces to destroy, conceal or alter relevant evidence, but this extension of union powers in the government's bill doesn't require the union to establish that there's any risk of the destruction of evidence or records. My proposed amendment removes this additional exemption.

Making it easier for unions to enter workplace without notice is overreach and doesn't contribute to closing any loopholes. The government is seeking to legislate for problems that do not exist. Any union wanting to enter a workplace to represent a member or attract members already has a straightforward and well-understood mechanism to do so through the entry permits held by its officials. This is another example of the government's bill extending union powers beyond what's necessary to address any problem identified.

We see this extension of union powers repeatedly in the bill. Even in the government's amendments we see additional union powers to pull multiple labour hire employers at one host site into an existing same job, same pay order.

I'm told by business groups that increased union powers to enter workplaces without notice and increased employer obligations to union delegates on site were not part of the exposure draft consultations. The Fair Work Commission's data on entry disputes does not reveal any problems with entry rights. This was an unexpected addition to the legislation and seems to be the government paying its dues to the union movement to support the growth of its influence and power, rather than passing legislation that addresses actual problems.

Unions have a part to play, but that doesn't mean that extending their reach into workplaces and growing their rights is always justified. If there isn't a problem that needs fixing, we should not be creating additional union powers.

I should explain why the government is opposing these amendments before we have the vote, and I'll be extending the same respect to the member for Curtin as to the previous members—with no doubt whatsoever that what is being presented is a valid representation of the views of the electorate. But I'll start by explaining the two issues. I'll deal briefly with delegates but a bit more with respect to the right-of-entry provision, because obviously a delegate is already someone within the workplace.

The impact of delegates, where they are well trained, is that you end up with safer workplaces and workplaces where the rules are followed. While this legislation squarely goes to issues of underpayment—some forms of underpayment that are lawful and some forms of underpayment that are unlawful—the objective here is not to lock up employers with the wage theft provisions. The objective is to have a series of measures that cause people to be paid properly in the first place. The government's very firmly of the view that, if you have someone in the workplace as an employee who is trained and knows people's rights, that makes a categorical difference in making sure that rules are followed, that you have a safer workplace and that underpayments are less likely.

Very much in the context of what we are doing on wage theft, we did not want the criminal offence to effectively be the only lever that we were looking at. Many employers already do all the things, with respect to delegates, that are contained in this legislation. But the objective here is to make sure that we don't simply have the penalty at the end of the process, when we finally find out about it. Having the different measures in place makes sure, as much as we can, that it is much less likely that people are underpaid in the first place.

I'll go into a little bit more detail, if I may, on the right of entry, because the concept of someone coming into your workplace who is not an employee is obviously a bigger deal. I want to explain why the government believes this is a natural extension to the provision which already exists. The provision that's already in the act, which the member referred to, is the provision where you can have right of entry without notice on the basis that the Fair Work Commission has decided that there is a reasonable likelihood of the destruction of evidence. The reason for that is really simple. If you give the notice you'd otherwise have to give and there is a risk of the destruction of evidence, you turn up, the evidence isn't there and the whole purpose of the visit collapses.

With respect to underpayments, there are various methods—and I have spoken previously about some of these in question time—by which people are underpaid. Finding out that this is happening can be entirely manipulated, with right-of-entry notice, by basically making sure that the relevant people, those who have been underpaid, are not there that day. For example, one of the classic ones that I've referred to previously was 7-Eleven, where people were put on the roster for fewer hours than they were working. If you give 24 hours notice, you will turn up and people will leave at their exact rostered time on that day. That's what will happen. These are practices which have been going on, sometimes, for years.

I remember seeing one of these instances. There's been reference previously to my small-business background. I also have a union background. I remember turning up at for a midnight meeting with the night-fill team of a very reputable business, and this exact situation of people working hours for which they had not been rostered had been going on for more than six years. For a team of about 12 or 14 people, it ended up being more than $100,000 they'd been underpaid. There was an agreement with that particular company that I would be able to turn up and talk to people. Had there been the formal notification, I wouldn't have found out that that was happening. I might add that for that late-night shift, until I turned up that time, there was no delegate on site. I don't see how we catch underpayment early unless there can be occasions where there's a reasonable belief in the view of the commission, so you have the umpire over the top—can I seek the call a second time, please?

Sure.

Unless the commission is able to say, 'Yes, in these circumstances it is all right for you to turn up unannounced,' there will be cases of wage theft that we will never get to the bottom of.

I also add this reality: while we provided more resources for the Fair Work Ombudsman, there will never be any government in this country that can provide enough resources for the Fair Work Ombudsman to be able to effectively police every underpayment in the country. Some of it will be done by parents and lawyers, and some of it will be done by unions. But whenever it involves something like an entry without notice—while the oversight of the commission is important—effectively what we have here, the government believes, is an exact parallel to the rationale for the provision that already exists with respect to the likelihood of destruction of documents.

Minister, I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Curtin. I think they are infinitely reasonable. I've listened very closely to your answer as you've responded to those amendments. There are two points I would like to offer back to you.

The first is that my understanding of the legislation that the government has provided and the changes that the member for Curtin has introduced is that it is unreasonable in any work environment for any employer to have one of their employees have unlimited access to training that the employer has not bought into and does not believe is in the best interests of their business. With respect, I would offer back to you that the argument you just used—about workplaces being safer if delegates are trained well—could be made on any one of a number of business principles. Your books are going to be run better if your accountant has unlimited access to training. Your workplace is going to be safer if your employees have unlimited access to first aid training. It's simply not practical to say to an employer that they will have no right to say to their employee, 'Your training hours are done.' It's why it's very standard to have limited training hours in any work environment. Responsible employers dedicate part of their budget to ensuring their employees are trained. In my experience, anywhere up to three per cent of their operating budget will be dedicated towards employee training. I think this creates a really unnecessary point of conflict between unions and workplaces, because it is basically saying that employers don't need to recognise union training under their training budget. I think that's to the detriment of unions. By the same token it's saying that employers have no right to buy into how their employees are trained in that situation.

The second point I would make is on the second amendment: who is the cop here that is actually making sure that a union delegate isn't just invoking the argument, 'I believe there's a case for underpayment, so I'm going to turn up'? Who's going to stop that? The reality is that there are by your own admission, Minister, many, many responsible businesses in this country doing exactly the same thing. There is also a very long and fractious history, in a number of industries, between the unions and those that would employ the people who are represented by them. Extending this power into some of those industries—and I would include the construction industry here—is incredibly problematic and has the potential to inflame situations in a work environment.

So, again, with respect, I think there are two pieces to this argument. Firstly, if the union delegate believes there is a case of underpayment, why would it not be the case that the union delegate doesn't at least have to go and get the Fair Work Commission's approval before they go in? That would be my first question. Secondly, even if they did go in and found, as you described, that there had been a manipulation of circumstance, doesn't that in effect equate to the destruction of evidence, and, therefore, isn't that right already there for them—in terms of believing that a manipulation of a work environment would be the equivalent of the destruction of evidence?

Just quickly—because there are questions there I should, in fairness, respond to with the government's view. First of all, on the concept of unlimited training, it's not unlimited training. The concept there would be very similar to the obligations that are already there for work health and safety training, where that would be defined within awards. In terms of who the cop is who is making decisions on right of entry, that is the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission would make that decision in advance of the right of entry. So hopefully that at least clarifies the issues, while I respect that it doesn't change the view of the amendment.

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

I move amendments (4) to (34) and (36) to (41), as circulated in my name, together:

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (line 10), at the end of section 66AAA, add:

; and (d) ensures that there cannot be changes to, or conversion of, a person's casual employment status against the person's wishes.

(5) Schedule 1, item 220, page 98 (after line 28), at the end of subsection 327A(3), add:

Note 3: Paragraph (b) of this subsection means that to commit the offence the employee needs to intend for the conduct to result in a failure to pay the required amount in full on or before the day it is due.

(6) Schedule 1, item 231, page 103 (lines 3 to 8), omit subsection 717A(1), substitute:

(1) While a cooperation agreement is in force between the Fair Work Ombudsman and a person:

(a) the person is not liable to be prosecuted in a court for a possible offence against subsection 327A(1) involving conduct engaged in by the person that is covered by the agreement; and

(b) the Fair Work Ombudsman must not refer the conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police for action in relation to a possible offence.

Note: See subsection 717B(1) for the definition of cooperation agreement.

(7) Schedule 1, Part 15, page 113 (lines 1 to 31), omit the Part.

(8) Schedule 1, item 248, page 123 (line 26), before "A person", insert "(1)".

(9) Schedule 1, item 248, page 123 (after line 29), at the end of section 15G, add:

Note: The person is not an employee (see paragraph 15P(1)(d) or 15Q(1)(c)).

(2) Nothing done by a regulated business under Chapter 3A in relation to the person makes the person an employee.

(10) Schedule 1, item 248, page 126 (line 3), omit "(1)".

(11) Schedule 1, item 248, page 126 (lines 17 to 28), omit subsections 15L(2) to (4).

(12) Schedule 1, item 248, page 127 (lines 1 to 16), omit section 15N, substitute:

15N Meaning of digital platform work

Digital platform work means work performed by an independent contractor, where:

(a) the work is performed under a services contract through or by means of a digital labour platform, or the services contract under which the work is performed was arranged or facilitated through or by means of a digital labour platform; and

(b) payment is made for that work.

(13) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (line 10), omit "one or more of the following", substitute "all of the following".

(14) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (line 14), omit "at or".

(15) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (line 17), omit "work;", substitute "work.".

(16) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (lines 18 and 19), omit subparagraph 15P(1)(e)(iv).

(17) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (lines 23 to 25), omit subsection 15P(3).

(18) Schedule 1, item 248, page 128 (after line 30), at the end of section 15P, add:

Persons who are not employee-like workers

(5) Despite subsection (1), a person is not an employee-like worker if the person:

(a) performs digital platform work under a contract; and

(b) can determine what that work involves; and

(c) can set their own rates of pay for that work; and

(d) can determine their own conditions for that work.

(19) Schedule 1, item 249, page 148 (line 4), at the end of paragraph 536JX(c), add:

(v) the recipients of services;

(20) Schedule 1, item 249, page 153 (after line 23), at the end of section 536KG, add:

(3) In making a decision under subsection (1) relating to employee-like workers, the FWC must consider the public interest including the need to support:

(a) productivity; and

(b) the effective, timely and accessible provision and distribution of goods and services to the community; and

(c) innovation and investment in the development and availability of digital platform work in Australia.

(21) Schedule 1, item 249, page 155 (before line 31), before subsection 536KL(1), insert:

(1A) In addition to sections 536KH and 536KK, an employee-like worker minimum standards order may only include terms about any of the following matters:

(a) payment terms;

(b) deductions;

(c) working time;

(d) record-keeping;

(e) insurance;

(f) consultation.

(22) Schedule 1, item 249, page 155 (line 31), omit "A minimum standards order" substitute "A road transport minimum standards order".

(23) Schedule 1, item 249, page 156 (line 11), omit "minimum standards order" substitute "road transport minimum standards order".

(24) Schedule 1, item 249, page 156 (after line 27), after paragraph 536KM(1)(e), insert:

(ea) in the case of an employee-like worker minimum standards order—superannuation;

(25) Schedule 1, item 249, page 166 (line 6), before "A person", insert "(1)".

(26) Schedule 1, item 249, page 166 (line 21), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".

(27) Schedule 1, item 249, page 166 (after line 21), at the end of section 536LD, add:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), regular basis means an average of at least 15 hours per week during the period.

(28) Schedule 1, item 249, page 167 (lines 16 to 22), omit paragraphs 536LG(b) and (c), substitute:

(b) the digital labour platform operator suspended or terminated the person's access to the digital labour platform.

(29) Schedule 1, item 249, page 167 (line 31), omit paragraph 536LH(1)(c), substitute:

(c) the health, safety and wellbeing of consumers of the digital labour platform.

(30) Schedule 1, item 249, page 168 (lines 8 and 9), omit "Without limiting the matters covered by the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code, the code must" substitute "The code must only".

(31) Schedule 1, item 249, page 168 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraph 536LJ(2)(a).

(32) Schedule 1, item 249, page 168 (lines 16 and 17), omit paragraph 536LJ(2)(d).

(33) Schedule 1, item 249, page 168 (line 19), omit "deactivation;", substitute "deactivation.".

(34) Schedule 1, item 249, page 168 (lines 20 to 23), omit paragraphs 536LJ(2)(f) and (g).

(36) Schedule 1, item 249, page 187 (line 18), at the end of subsection 536MR(3), add:

; and (f) if the collective agreement relates to employee-like workers—specify any payments or benefits provided, or to be provided, to the organisation:

(i) by, or on behalf of, the regulated business; and

(ii) under or in relation to the collective agreement.

(37) Schedule 1, item 249, page 187 (line 24), omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2) to (3A)".

(38) Schedule 1, item 249, page 188 (after line 4), after subsection 536MS(3), insert:

(3A) If the collective agreement relates to employee-like workers, the FWC must be satisfied that the agreement is in the public interest after having regard to the need to support:

(a) productivity; and

(b) the effective, timely and accessible provision and distribution of goods and services to the community; and

(c) innovation and investment in the development and availability of digital platform work in Australia.

(39) Schedule 1, item 308, page 224 (line 1) to page 228 (line 24), omit Part 16.

(40) Schedule 1, item 308, page 229 (line 14), omit "536LD(c)", substitute "536LD(1)(c)".

(41) Page 230 (after line 3), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A — Other amendments of the Fair Work Act 2009

Fair Work Act 2009

1 At the end of section 3

Add:

; and (h) facilitating growth in real wages through productivity and competition.

2 Subsection 23(1)

Omit "15 employees", substitute "100 (full-time equivalent) employees".

3 At the end of Division 2 of Part 5-1

Add:

Subdivision D — Review of the FWC

584C Review of the FWC by the Productivity Commission

(1) The Productivity Commission must review:

(a) the operations of the FWC; and

(b) the effectiveness of Australia's system of workplace relations and industrial regulation.

(2) The Productivity Commission must complete the review and give the Minister a written report of the review by 31 October 2024.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament before the end of 2024.

(4) The functions of the Productivity Commission are taken to include conducting and reporting on the review.

I have sought a range of amendments to the bill. I'd like to explain the rationale for these amendments, starting from where we agree and where we disagree in relation to these amendments. Where do we agree? In broad terms, we want to see real wages rise for Australian workers. That is something that I fundamentally agree with, as is that Australian workers are appropriately protected. I also want to see businesses thrive and grow in productivity, because, as the Productivity Commission has demonstrated, 80 per cent of real wage growth is associated with productivity growth. If we do not get productivity growth, we will not get real wage growth that is sustainable in the long term. For me, that is really the critical lens through which I look at this legislation.

This comes back to the question of whether the bill gets the balance right to ensure we will drive productivity over the long term to ensure that real wages go up while ensuring the bad actors in the economy—and there are bad actors—do not behave in a way that is detrimental to workers and to the broader economy. I think this is the heart of where the government and I disagree. The government has presented a number of legitimate concerns they have with the current industrial relations framework and with a number of particular companies they feel are breaching those concerns. They have also identified that the gig economy is a new part of the economy and it should be regulated appropriately for the safety and care of workers, with which in principle I 100 per cent agree. However, it is the range and scope of the government's intervention in this space that is my concern. It is the range and scope of the legislation where I just feel that the government fundamentally has not got the balance right.

My piece has been from the start that I think it's about being narrow in our understanding of the problem and narrow in our understanding of the solution to be applied so that good businesses and good workers who are enjoying the current arrangements and the flexibility that they provide are not negatively impacted by these changes.

Let me take you to a few of the amendments that I have moved. Firstly, I'm moving amendments that would make real wage growth an object of the Fair Work Act, because, frankly, I think that, if we're not growing real wages, we are not actually looking after our workers, because that has the most material impact on their living standards. It also includes the Productivity Commission having a review of the Fair Work Commission. I seek that because I would like to make sure that our fair work provisions and the Fair Work Commission actually deliver productivity growth, because, again, without productivity growth, we don't have real wage growth. Without real wage growth, people in this country will go backwards. Otherwise, it also increases the threshold of businesses from 15 to 100, about which I've already spoken.

On the subject of casuals, there are a number of amendments that another colleague is going to move and which I wholeheartedly support. I'm very concerned about what the government is doing in relation to casuals. People who rely on casual work right now because of the flexibility and also the additional money it brings into the household are not going to be able to do that if businesses aren't doing the right thing, and I think that is fundamentally problematic. I have moved an amendment to try to make sure that those who are casual workers cannot be converted into a permanent worker against their wishes.

I have also moved a number of amendments in relation to the gig economy. This comes down to balance. As I said, I accept that we need to have minimum standards in the gig economy. But it's the range and scope and uncertainty—the breadth of those arrangements is my concern. My concern on this is that, as someone who has run businesses, if I need to keep coming back to the Fair Work Commission to understand what I need to do, if, if the Fair Work Commission has an unlimited range of things it can make arrangements on in relation to this, that is problematic for a business trying to have certainty—particularly when some of these provisions will particularly affect healthcare provision in some of our rural and remote communities who haven't historically had that support and now have had it through some of those platform workers. I'm very concerned that that will be impacted.

I thank the member for Wentworth for the contribution, debate and engagement. The member for Wentworth and I engage a lot on my portfolios. We tend to engage on the arts portfolio, where there is furious agreement, and on workplace relations, where on many aspects it comes down to the fact that we have different views sometimes of the impact and sometimes of what the behavioural change will be. I think that's where we find ourselves now, particularly with respect to casuals. When I announced in a speech at the Sydney Institute what we wanted to do on casuals, I made clear that the intention of the government was to still have a situation where someone who wanted to remain a casual would be a casual and that we wouldn't get in the way of that. On any of the data I've seen, there's in the order of possibly five per cent of casuals who would like to be permanent instead. We crafted things on that basis.

There were initial arguments put by a number of people, including business groups and the member for Wentworth, that one of the penalty provisions we had in place would in fact undermine that stated policy intention from the government. I have no doubt that, had that not been one of the government amendments yesterday, that would be one of the amendments from the member for Wentworth and many of the crossbench now. I believe that, in changing that penalty provision, we have created the circumstance we want, where people who want to be casual will be able to be. But, in those small situations where it is in fact a permanent job and the worker really wants to switch to permanent, we've given them the avenues to do so without losing the opportunities for casuals to be employed in the first place. I respect that the member for Wentworth has a different view as to what the behavioural impact will be.

On the shift of 15 to 100: given the government just voted against 15 to 50, the government will vote against 15 to 100 for the same reasons I referred to earlier. Finally, on the gig economy and the concept of 12 months service: we've tried to simply match this deactivation jurisdiction as closely as we can with how it is working if you are employed as a casual. There were original proposals for a even shorter time than what's in the bill. The government formed the view you couldn't have a situation where a gig worker had access to unfair deactivation more quickly than a casual could access unfair dismissal. That's why it's landed where it has. The government is reluctant to push that out further.

I rise in support of the member for Wentworth's amendments. I congratulate her and her team on the forensic work they've done on this quite mammoth bill. Certainly a lot of work has been done on the crossbench on this.

I want to largely speak to two points that the member raised. As she comes at this from the perspective of an economist and someone who's worked extensively in business, I come to this as someone who has expertise in trying to get answers to unanswered questions, and the unanswered question for me lies in the member's proposed amendment around real wage growth and productivity. In a cost-of-living crisis where a lot of people in this country are going backwards, I'm still confused. I don't have an answer to the question of how this legislation and, indeed, many of the government's policies resolve that issue. I feel that there is not enough discussion on productivity improvement in the conversations that we're having in this place, and at the end of the day, for employers who are looking for that, that is the critical issue. But, of course, real wage growth for employees is the critical issue, so, if there's one guiding principle that the member is trying to insert into this bill, I absolutely think that's a good one.

I also would like to speak briefly to the principles of the gig economy that the member for Wentworth has spoken to. The amendments she's proposed are similar to the one that I put forward on reducing the breadth of the way the bill will potentially treat gig workers and the sense that what the government is trying to do is at odds with the nature of the gig economy and is to impose a form of award system over the top of an economy that is designed to be, and is, in its very nature, flexible.

I thank the minister for his remarks. I genuinely agree with you. I think you and I understand where we're coming from and our differences. I want to flag that my biggest concern in relation to casuals is that businesses are legitimately employing casuals right now where the casuals wants to be casuals because they enjoy the higher rate of immediate pay and they don't know necessarily what they want to be doing in six or 12 months so they are not necessarily seeking long-term commitment and they also may enjoy opportunities to flex up their hours during school holidays or during term time, depending on what the situation is and the amendments that the government has put forward will mean that legitimate businesses will say, 'If I do have firm advance commitment in terms of the hours that I'm likely to provide and there's a certain regularity, then I will have to offer this person a permanent part-time role, even though I and they, both of us, would prefer that they were casual.' That's my deep and fundamental concern with the bill. I think it removes that agency from individuals.

At the same time, we haven't done the work to make part-time work more flexible so that, if I am a part-time worker working 15 hours a week but I want to pick up extra hours over the Christmas holidays, I can do that in a way that is still attractive to the employer, in that the employer does not have such a high penalty rate over my 15 hours. That's really at the heart of my concern on casual work.

Casual work works for a whole bunch of Australians. It's money in the pocket right now, and my concern is that these changes will mean that the good businesses, the businesses that do the right thing and are really careful, will no longer feel comfortable offering casual work to the extent that it is currently offered. I think that would be to the detriment of both our businesses and, in particular, our employees.

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

I move amendments (1) to (11), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 21), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 4) to page 7 (line 26), omit the item.

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraph 66AAB(a).

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 1), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 3), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 23 to 25), omit the note.

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 10 (lines 30 to 33), omit paragraph 66AAC(4)(a).

(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (line 7), at the end of subsection 66AAC(4) (before the note), add:

; (d) it is probable that the employee's position will cease to exist in the period of 12 months after the day the notification is given;

(e) it is probable that there will be a significant change in the employee's hours, or patterns, of work in the period of 12 months after the day the notification is given.

(9) Schedule 1, item 18, page 18 (lines 6 to 11), omit paragraph 125A(2)(aa).

(10) Schedule 1, item 308, page 216 (lines 9 to 17), omit paragraph 92(2)(a), substitute:

(a) to resolve an uncertainty or difficulty relating to the interaction between the instrument and the provisions of Division 4A of Part 2-2 of the amended Act; or

(11) Schedule 1, item 308, page 216 (line 27) to page 217 (line 20), omit subclauses 93(1) to (4).

These amendments are important, because, after extensive consultation with businesses in Warringah and broader organisations such as COSBOA and the Business Council, briefings with the unions and liaising with small businesses and local chambers of commerce, I know there is an incredibly high level of concern at the overreach of this legislation. No-one has disputed, throughout the course of this debate around all the amendments, that some of the intent is genuine. But, in relation to much of these amendments, I feel that it's a sledgehammer being taken to a whole area rather than being more specific, in particular in relation to the definition and the issue of casual employment. I'm sure the minister would be aware of this, but it came as quite a surprise to me just how many different definitions of small business we have in Commonwealth legislation. He's nodding his head, so I'm sure he knows. We currently have 12 different definitions of small businesses across Commonwealth legislation. So it's very important to know that, when we start to think of provisions such as those in this legislation that apply differently for small business and big business, some businesses won't even know under which piece of legislation they are considered a small business and under which they are considered a larger business. That becomes incredibly important when we have questions of compliance and serious consequences.

The amendments that I have moved reverse some of the changes proposed in relation to casual employment, in particular because, under this legislation, the proposal is that there will be a conversion after 12 months for a small business but six months for a larger business. The amendment that I have moved restores the conversion to 12 months for all businesses instead of six months for some because of the very problem of so many different definitions of small businesses. Another amendment removes this new definition of casual. Another amendment removes the firm advancement commitment of continuing or ongoing work as a grounds of conversion and introduces the right for conversion to be refused where the role will not be necessary and/or will be significantly changed within the following 12 months. This is incredibly important. Where, for example, retail stores may be intended to be shut or there might be a restructure planned, the loss of that flexibility for businesses will be incredibly important, and it's important that businesses are able to argue against conversion of a casual employee to a permanent employee on the basis that there are likely to be significant changes within the next 12 months.

As I noted in my speech on this bill several weeks ago, the change to the definition of 'casual' and the related provisions cause a lot of uncertainty for business in the government's original bill. It will introduce a degree of rigidity into the employment environment, which is highly likely to have unintended consequences and see businesses more reluctant to hire additional casuals when we are already facing significant headwinds in our economy, and they are likely to carry through to 2024. I note the comments of the minister in relation to different views on these issues, but I think it is important to note that, whilst there has been consultation on this bill, there hasn't really been an assessment as to its likely impact or real workshopping to iron out those unintended consequences. So I'm concerned that the government's original bill, without these amendments, doesn't contain a sufficient degree of flexibility for employers and employees, and accordingly some businesses will suffer. It is a sledgehammer approach.

In particular, casual work is key for many workers, including students and parents who want flexibility, some regularly. It provides for higher take-home pay, with an average of 25 per cent loading. For so many young Australians getting their first job, learning to work and gaining key employability skills—I really want to emphasise that point—casual work is an entry point and is incredibly important, particularly for small businesses in hospitality and retail navigating uncertainty and changing conditions. (Extension of time granted)

It's incredibly important that small businesses be able to continue having that flexibility of casuals, but with that flexibility is often a regular agreement as to what days and hours a person will work. If I take the example of a parent, they do want to know that they are going to work on a casual basis of Monday, Wednesday and Friday because those are the days they have child care organised, for example. But, if there are changes to their provisions or child care, they want to also be able to change those agreements of days of work, and so losing that flexibility is incredibly difficult and, I think, dangerous for small businesses but also for the people looking to work in an environment that works for them. I would argue the current definition works. It's clear and reliable for both employees and employers. Complicating the definition as the government proposes will only cause confusion.

In relation to the firm advance commitment aspect of continuing or ongoing work as grounds for conversion, it makes no real difference, as you cannot provide an advance commitment, which means you cannot give a casual worker a roster. Again, it's more uncertainty and more confusion from the rules that are already there. It's that complexity that so many businesses are really objecting to. In difficult economic times, the government should be focusing on making things simpler to really assist when it comes to the cost-of-living crisis and giving businesses that certainty. The key message I hear from businesses in Warringah and around the country is that more red tape, more confusion and more complicated legislative changes are just making it harder for them. So I would urge the government to consider these amendments—if not in this place, then in the other place—to make things much simpler for small businesses and keep flexibility in the system.

I thank the member for Warringah. As I've acknowledged with the other crossbench members, there's no doubt the member for Warringah has always been very closely engaged with the businesses in her electorate. If there were ever evidence of that, it was the confidence when the member for Warringah first arrived here and a whole lot of people not from my party said, 'Oh, she'll only be here for one term.' So the engagement is strong, and what that brings to the chamber is respected.

I want to explain briefly one reason and in a bit more detail another two reasons why the government's voting against these amendments. The examples that were given with respect to the six- to 12-month change are examples the government believes would already be covered by the fact that you would have to have a firm advance commitment and the requirement of 'fair and reasonable', both of which are contained in the definitions. The government doesn't believe—and I certainly don't believe—that the sorts of examples the member for Warringah has given would in fact end up being problems. I think those sorts of examples of flexibility and surge would be covered by the provisions I just referred to.

But one of the other very significant things these amendments do is delete the definition of a casual and the definition of employment. And while I respect that, in terms of legislation, what we are doing on these definitions is new, in terms of Australian law it's not. We had massive change in very recent years as to the accepted legal definition of a casual and the accepted legal definition of employment. Effectively the court went to a position where, on both, it effectively said: 'We're no longer looking objectively at what's going on. Whatever your contract says, that's the end of the story.' These amendments effectively are attempting—as close as you can with legislation, because obviously you can never do it identically, because the common law is not like that, as the member for Warringah knows better than most people in this room—to reflect what was believed to be the definition of casual and the definition of employment prior to those court cases.

I think the best examples I can give would be to refer to the facts of those court cases, to explain the problem we are wanting to solve. The Rossato case was a case about a casual who, under common law, normally would have been regarded as being permanent but was found by the court to be a casual. What were the circumstances of that worker? They worked for a labour hire company called WorkPac. On commencement the worker was given a 12-month full-time roster, from the start, and told they were a casual. Objectively, being given a 12-month full-time roster would have been seen as having the security of permanent employment. Up until the Rossato case, most people would have presumed that that was where the law rested. The court found otherwise. This legislation is attempting to return to an objective definition of a casual, which we made a specific election commitment on.

Similarly, the cases of Jamsek and Personnel Contracting changed the definition of employment such that, where it had previously been a much more practical common law definition, it became effectively whatever the contract says. That now determines whether you're an employee. The best example I can give of this is the example that was in Personnel Contracting. A backpacker turned up to a construction site and all they had in terms of their equipment or skills that they brought were 'a hard hat, boots, and a strong constitution'. They were told to get an ABN, because they were actually being told they were a small business; they weren't an employee. On every objective definition, that backpacker was not running a small business. So, the definition of employment which is there in the act, while it's new—it wasn't previously in the act; previously it didn't need to be, because the common law had presumed a practical objective definition of employment—the High Court has now decided that that's not the case and the parliament basically has to make a decision on casuals and on employment as to whether we want to allow the High Court's ruling there to be how we want the govern employment law.

The view of the government is that the person turning up whose only equipment is a hard hat and boots and whose only skill that they're bringing to it is a strong constitution was not a small business. We believe it was the fudging of an employment relationship. (Extension of time granted) Similarly, regarding the labour hire worker who was given a 12-month full-time roster and wanted to be seen to be a permanent worker, we don't believe that they should be found to be a casual simply because that was the contract that the employer signed on day one. That's the problem we're trying to solve, and they're the reasons we don't support the amendment that is being moved.

I thank the minister for those clarifications in response, but I would argue that you've actually just proved the very point that I was making—that you're taking a sledgehammer to particular problems by making it so far-reaching in relation to many, many more businesses. You're taking a couple of instances that had broad reach, but, because of where your definition of 'small business' lies and because of the broad application of the change that you're making, the only real defence you're providing is that there will be an interpretation around the reasonableness and 'advanced roster' that would be sufficient to prevent this legislation impacting a much greater number of businesses than you appear to intend. That's where the argument is—this is not fine-tuned enough for the very particular cases of bad actors that you are attempting to deal with. But, ultimately, the court interpreted the legalities and stood by the terms of the contract by which that employment was governed. I think there is merit in that interpretation, even though it was not the one that, maybe, this side of government would have preferred. At the end of the day, the problem I have—and, I think, many of my colleagues have with this legislation—is that, in attempting to deal with a particular issue, this is going to have a much broader impact.

I just want to rise to reiterate what the member for Warringah has just said because I think she has hit on a couple of really important pieces. I note the member for Wentworth also talked about this prior to leaving the chamber. There are a couple of significant concerns that the community of North Sydney have. Not the least of them is what is happening here with the definition of 'casual employees': how it will be interpreted and what impact it is likely to have. With respect, if this proceeds, it will be absolutely intrinsic for this government to ensure that there are significant resources put into educating small to medium sized businesses around what impact this will have. I can tell you with certainty that the immediate reaction to this legislation in North Sydney will be the cessation of casual employment. They are very concerned about the impact this will have and the liability it creates for them. I've already had a number of employers come and see me and say, 'We don't want to risk falling foul of this. We're still trying to get our heads around the legislative reform that has already happened this year, and this is a second piece. I'm just going to bring my wife back in to do that job rather than employ a separate casual.'

I also want to pick up on—and I think this is why, for someone like myself and even my community, this becomes so overwhelming and so concerning—the intersectionality of this legislation. We're talking about 'casual', we're talking about 'contract', and we're talking about labour hire, even to the point of the conversation that was just had about an employee who shows up and signs a contract to commence work on a site. It is very important, I think, as a government and as a parliament in this place that we don't overreach and deny the fact that there are two different ways of working. Every person should have the right to choose to be contracted on a job, regardless of what that job is. I have had feedback around this legislation that there is also concern that it is an overreach because it is taking contract employment law and trying to turn it into employment law. It's different ways of working. I think, again, having a piece of legislation which has so many things conflated in it is making it very difficult for the business sector to get its head around it, as well as, indeed, those who would prefer to work under contract and those who would prefer to continue to be employed as casuals.

Again, I rise to support the member's amendments and encourage the government to, please, consider these deeply as we move from this place into the next place. I'm sure the Senate will be looking at this very closely because I think it's a fairly persistent piece of feedback that this legislation has had. I thank the government again for continuing to engage in this area as we try to get this right, to get the outcomes we want without the unintended consequences being something that ultimately may make it stumble in its execution.

The question before the House is that amendments (1) to (11) moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

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

(1) Schedule 1, item 73, page 41 (line 19), at the end of subsection 306E(1) (before the note), add:

; and (d) the performance of the work is not or will not be wholly or principally for the provision of a service, rather than the supply of labour, to the regulated host.

(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 43 (lines 12 to 35), omit paragraph 306E(8)(b).

I am quite sure that the minister is actually not surprised to see me rise to move these amendments, as he, his team, my team and I have had many conversations around what the changes in this legislation will actually mean for those working in the labour hire sector. When I say 'those working in the labour hire sector', what I'm actually talking about are the companies that employ the people that we currently call 'temps' and that we call 'casuals'. I must say that I am very grateful for the input that the RCSA has provided to me very consistently over this time. The amendments that I'm moving make the Fair Work Commission's ability to make a labour hire arrangement order provisional on the commission being satisfied that the performance of the work is not wholly or principally for the provision of a service rather than a supply of labour. In other words, this amendment would explicitly make service contractors exempt from labour hire arrangement orders.

From the outset, I've said there are parts of this legislation that my community welcomes. However, they do ultimately feel that the positive elements of this legislation could be overwhelmed by what may be the unintended consequences. One of the employment practices that we've been focused on is the sweeping labour hire changes—same work, same pay provisions, as they've become known colloquially—which as they're currently drafted apply to a broad range of contracting arrangements, including service contracting. The government's amendments introduced yesterday went some way to fixing this, but, with respect, they did not go far enough. When I first saw this legislation, I was immediately struck by the challenges that it would create for service contract businesses and businesses that frequently employ or deploy temps. That was based on my own personal experience of having intimately seen the way that a recruitment agency works.

The key question I had is: would the employees that were being deployed by these agencies ultimately be covered by the work agreements under which they were employed via the employment agency, or would those temp agencies be beholden to actually pay their temps on the basis of the work agreement of the agency that they were being deployed to?

I acknowledge that the government has worked to refine these elements of the bill, but there still remains concern from those working across the recruitment industry that it has not gone far enough in that it doesn't explicitly exempt service provision. I also want to acknowledge that my team has had a conversation this morning with the minister's team, and I thank them for that. I think the feedback that my team took out of that conversation was that there's confidence that they won't be captured. My ask of the government, the minister and his team is: rather than just having confidence that it won't be captured, why not explicitly say it in the legislation?

We've had conversations and we've have seen arguments as to why certain parts of this bill are written the way they are. Those arguments have been that 'we want it in black and white', 'we want it to be there so there can be no question about what should be considered when defining a "casual"' and 'we want it to be there so there can be no question about union access to sites'.

With respect, I would say that the recruitment industry—those people who are doing the right thing—who fundamentally enable our economy to move forward on a day-by-day and week-by-week basis by making sure there are talented people who are able to be deployed at short notice to the companies who need them, is specifically asking us for this change so that they can continue to operate with confidence. I stand here today as a voice for them and a voice for my community in saying that we believe these are reasonable amendments and, with respect, we ask the government and the minister and his team to consider these amendments.

I think I should apologise to the member for North Sydney on this one because clearly the communication between our offices hasn't been as good as we would both have wanted it to be. I'll take responsibility for that. But, effectively, had I known—the wording of the amendments I moved to these two sections yesterday is almost identical to what's in front of us now. The second part, 'schedule 1, item 73, page 43 (lines 12 to 35), omit paragraph 306E(8)(b)—we did that yesterday, exactly. Part (2) is done. For part (1), we've used almost identical words in the same section but to a different part of it.

So, in terms of 'if we agree with the policy intention, why don't we do this', we did. But that's no criticism in any way. I suspect this is simply a creature of the amount of material for people to get through. Otherwise I probably could have taken it out of yesterday's and we would have dealt with it now. But I hope in some way that this is an example of the determination of the government, whether we've got a majority or not, that the consultation be real.

I do want to make clear to the House that, on these issues about the different roles of labour hire, I don't think there is anyone with the sort of expertise that the member for North Sydney brings to the House and brings to the parliament on that. And, while I didn't move these amendments in the House until yesterday, the conversations with the member for North Sydney began very soon—in fact, they may have even begun on this before the introduction of the bill in the first place.

So, on that basis, we can't support the amendments because they now would create a duplication of provisions that went through yesterday. But every part of the policy intention of the member for North Sydney has been included in the amendments that the government put forward.

I want to rise and thank the minister for his feedback around that. I do acknowledge it has been an extraordinary amount of work for all involved. So moving quickly to try and get our heads around this has been a challenge, as we have already all acknowledged. I also want to say that it's really reassuring that those changes were made and that I think it is a really great example of where really positive policy reform can result from open communications where there is a commitment to collaboration and commitment to ensuring all voices are heard in this chamber.

Speaking of all voices being heard in this chamber, I believe my colleague is coming back to the chamber to try and move a final amendment pertaining to a review process around this legislation. Again, I believe she's coming back to do that because the government has indicated they are prepared to accept that amendment as moved by the member. Reflecting on that, the amendment will be about embedding a review at the two-year period for this legislation. With everything that has been discussed today, what I would say is that that also gives me confidence—or greater confidence—in the capacity of this government to actually be able to review this bill on a regular basis. I think, in part, it does acknowledge the fact that, as the member for Warringah said, as far as we are aware, there has been no economic modelling done on what the impact of this legislation may be. At a time when we know small businesses are struggling—a large percentage of those small businesses are owned by families—and families in and of themselves are struggling to make ends meet, it is important that we recognise as a parliament that we may not always get things 100 per cent right at the time that we move them through this place. Building in things like sunset provisions and review timelines is incredibly important as we seek to move legislation through this House. There has been an extraordinary amount of work done, and I thank everyone for that amount of work. I think, if we continue in that frame of mind going forward, not just with reforms around employment law, the truth is that we will inevitably create better legislation for all.

The final point I would potentially raise in here relates to the amount of responsibility that's now being given over to the Fair Work Commission. As I've said in this place already, it is imperative that the Fair Work Commission be appropriately resourced, whether that is by the people that work with it, through the materials that they produce or, indeed, through the budget that they are provided with, to be able to move forward with this reform. I am unaware as to whether there was significant money put into last year's budget to enable this change to happen, but I would put on the public record that I'm very much looking forward to seeing the budget provisions being made available in the financial budget for next year.

Question negatived.

Debate interrupted.

One of the amendments that was circulated by the member for Wentworth is one that the government's in a position to agree to, and so the member for Wentworth did not move those two amendments earlier. So, to allow that to be put separately—and I apologise to the opposition; we've only very recently advised them of this—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolution agreed to by the House on 14 November 2023 relating to the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 being varied to permit the Member for Wentworth to move an additional set of amendments, and to permit separate questions to be put on the Member's sets of amendments.

This motion that the Leader of the House has just moved is nothing but a consequence of the chaotic mismanagement of legislative processes under this government. We heard the Leader of the House at earlier stages today talk about the fact they had allowed plenty of time for debate, that it's extended over weeks. Of course, there is one critical point that he neglected to mention when he was speaking in his most reasonable tone—which should always put you on notice, if you've had any dealings at all with the Leader of the House. He failed to make clear that in fact what has happened is that he's allowed time for second reading speeches where a series of Labor Party members of this House had the chance to get up and repay what they owe the unions that funded their campaigns to get here by spitting out a predigested set of talking points, but he has not allowed any appropriate time for consideration of the detailed and complex issues which this bill brings forward.

There are 270 pages in this bill. There were 30-plus pages of government amendments which were introduced just yesterday, made available just yesterday, and the consideration-in-detail debate began last night. But what is most troubling for any Australian who cares about the role of the parliament in performing its job, in engaging in scrutiny of what the executive and government are doing, in holding government to account, is that the Leader of the House has procured that this process is occurring under the terms of a debate management motion, moved by him and passed by the government using its numbers, which says that when the bill is considered in detail any detailed amendments be moved together as one set for the government, one set for the opposition and one set for the crossbench members—and, relevantly, to the issue to crossbench members, which is what has now engaged this desperate last-minute struggle to try and find a way out of the procedural straitjacket which the Leader of the House has created for himself.

Relevantly, the motion the House passed some time ago says:

separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members …

…   …   …

any question on amendments provided for under paragraph (7) being put after no more than 20 minutes of debate, unless a Minister sets further periods of 10 minutes for debate

The Leader of the House has created a procedural straitjacket for this parliament in the way that it deals with the very complex issues which are before the House today.

I want to commend members from both the opposition and the crossbench who have spoken to these points over the last couple of days and highlighted just how detailed and complex this piece of legislation is and just how detailed and complex the amendments moved by the government are, and the pressure this has put on all relevant parties—parties in the small 'p' sense—to engage and consider the complexity of them. Consideration in detail is the process where the parliament is supposed to have the opportunity to drill down and to ask things. For example, if the minister asserts airily that three pages of definition of what constitutes 'casual employment' can be read and understood quickly—that is a proposition which, on the facts, is frankly a proposition that is very difficult to sustain. It is a procedural straitjacket which the Leader of the House has created for the government. Frankly, it is, in the view of the opposition, a problem that has arisen solely because of this government's determination to constrain the time which is allowed for debate. If normal procedures had been followed, this motion would have been completely unnecessary.

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

I move amendments (1) and (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "to 3", substitute "to 4".

(3) Page 4 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must:

(a) consider whether the operation of the amendments made by this Act is appropriate and effective; and

(b) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments made by this Act; and

(c) consider whether amendments of the Fair Work Act 2009, or any other legislation, are necessary to:

(i) improve the operation of the amendments made by this Act; or

(ii) rectify any unintended consequences identified under paragraph (b).

(3) The review must start no later than 2 years after this section commences.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

I move these amendments because I think it is appropriate that we have a review of this bill. It's a complex bill, and I think that we should review it after a number of years to make sure that we understand the impact of the bill and we can fairly reflect on whether we need further amendments after that period of time.

The government will be supporting these amendments. There is always a question as to what the appropriate time for a review is. Some of what this bill deals with is a new jurisdiction, and the Fair Work Commission dealing with areas it hasn't dealt with before. Anything shorter than two years probably wouldn't work, because of the different start dates of different provisions, so I think the member for Wentworth has definitely got the right balance there on the timing of the review. As is always the case when you go into a new jurisdiction, there will be information that comes as a result of this amendment which can guide the next parliament with some good outcomes and what further refinements might be necessary.

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

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

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

I move:

That business intervening before notice No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations. It also recognises that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.

The idea that an individual, through their own conduct, can sever their connection to the Australian body politic, has been enshrined in Australian citizenship law since the commencement of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. This was replaced by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

In 2015, terrorism related conduct was specified as a basis for citizenship cessation for the first time. The citizenship act was subsequently amended in 2020, moving from an 'operation of law' model established in 2015, to establish a new framework with discretionary powers for the minister to cease a dual citizen's Australian citizenship for engaging in specified terrorism related conduct or on being convicted and sentenced for terrorism and other specified serious offences.

In June 2022, the High Court ruled invalid part of the terrorism related citizenship cessation regime. The court ruled in Alexander v Minister for Home Affairsthat section 36B of the citizenship act was not valid as it 'reposed in the minister the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt'.

In November this year, in the case of Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs, the High Court ruled that the provision of section 36D of the citizenship act was also invalid.

The High Court's decisions in these cases mean that a new citizenship cessation regime is needed.

As such, today the government introduces the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. The billwould repeal the invalid provisions and establish a citizenship cessation regime that appropriately addresses the outcomes of the High Court's decisions in Alexander and Benbrika.

The bill provides an appropriate mechanism to deal with dual Australian citizens who have committed crimes that are so serious and so significant that they demonstrate the repudiation of their allegiance to Australia. The bill promotes the value and integrity of Australian citizenship and the ongoing commitment to Australia and its shared values, while also contributing to the protection of the Australian community.

Under the bill, the power to make a citizenship cessation order is vested in the courts and is an appropriate exercise of judicial, rather than executive power.

Having regard to the High Court's decisions in Alexander and Benbrika, the bill provides that where a person has been convicted of a specified offence or offences, and the court has decided to sentence that person to a term or terms of imprisonment for those serious offences totalling at least three years, the court may order as part of the sentence that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen. The specified offences include:

To make a citizenship cessation order, the court must be satisfied that the person is aged 14 years or older and is an Australian citizen. The court must also be satisfied that the conduct to which the conviction or convictions relate is so serious and significant that it demonstrates that they have repudiated their allegiance to Australia.

The bill outlines a range of factors that the court must have regard to in deciding whether to make the order. While the court must have regard to these factors, they are not mandated prerequisites to the making of a citizenship cessation order, and not all factors need to be present in each circumstance for an order to be made by the court.

Cessation of an individual's Australian citizenship is a serious step reserved for a narrow cohort of individuals. As such, the bill includes appropriate safeguards.

The court can only make a citizenship cessation order if the Minister for Home Affairs makes an application for that order.

The application may be made before or after the person is convicted of one or more serious offences, but must be made before the person is sentenced.

The minister must give the person written notice of the application as soon as practicable after the application is made.

The court must not make the order if the court is satisfied that the person would, if the order is made, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country.

The bill includes provisions ensuring that the citizenship status of a person is clear where a decision of a court has overturned or quashed the order.

The bill also includes provisions for both independent and parliamentary committee reviews of the provisions within an appropriate time.

The government understands the complexities of this significant legislation and is committed to a robust and workable regime. Laws that fail in the courts don't make our country any safer.

Citizenship is available to those who make Australia their home and who are prepared to commit to our nation for our common future.

Citizenship represents a full and formal membership of the Australian community. It involves reciprocal rights and obligations. It is something to be treasured and not to be taken lightly.

That is why our government is committed to a citizenship cessation regime—to uphold the integrity of Australian citizenship and to provide an appropriate response to criminal conduct which constitutes repudiation of a person's allegiance to our great country.

I commend this bill to the House.

The process by which the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 has arrived in the House today is chaotic and shambolic and gives no confidence to anyone that this government knows what it's doing.

Order! I'm sorry, Shadow Minister. The debate must now be adjourned.

Debate adjourned.

Establishing an economic inclusion advisory committee sounds like a very good idea, obviously, but frankly it will only be a good idea if such a committee spends its time considering those who are currently excluded economically, and no group is more excluded in Australia than the 3.3 million people, including 761,000 children, who are currently living below the poverty line. I'll repeat that. There are currently more than three million Australians, including almost one million children, currently living below the poverty line. No wonder we have the 15th highest poverty rate out of the 34 wealthiest countries in the OECD. Just this morning, very helpfully, I received an email from the Central Land Council, which noted that poverty in remote parts of the Northern Territory and in the west Kimberley region are currently running at about 50 per cent, and that poverty rate is increasing. Shockingly, in the Jabiru-Tiwi region in northern Australia, the poverty rate is some 74 per cent and increasing. So, clearly, this is an enormously important issue.

It's no surprise, then, that so many people are quite shocked to see that the government's Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 does not actually address the issue of poverty specifically and explicitly when it goes about its work. No wonder ACOSS, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and other similar organisations are very surprised that the bill does not address poverty directly and are calling for the bill to be amended so that it does address poverty, which is why I am moving my amendments. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (8) as circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 19), after "and participation", insert ", and for reducing poverty".

(2) Clause 6, page 4 (line 9), after "and participation", insert ", and for reducing poverty".

(3) Clause 8, page 5 (line 13), after "economic inclusion", insert "and poverty reduction".

(4) Clause 8, page 5 (line 20), omit "and tackle disadvantage", substitute ", tackle disadvantage and reduce poverty".

(5) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), omit "(d) options for tailored responses to address barriers to economic inclusion for", substitute:

(d) options for tailored responses to address:

(i) barriers to economic inclusion; and

(ii) barriers to reducing poverty;

for

(6) Clause 8, page 5 (line 29), after "economic inclusion policies", insert ", and poverty reduction policies,".

(7) Clause 8, page 6 (line 3), after "economic inclusion policies", insert ", and poverty reduction policies,".

(8) Clause 8, page 6 (line 4), after "inequality markers", insert ", and poverty markers,".

These amendments insert poverty reduction into each of the listed matters for consideration by the committee as they formulate any report. This seeks to ensure that, no matter which of the one or more matters that the committee chooses to include in their report, poverty reduction will need to be considered. This will complement the amendment being moved, I believe, shortly after this by the member for North Sydney, which will require the development of and reporting on poverty reduction targets, as well as other important changes to transparency and lived experience representation on the committee.

I believe that these amendments would make this bill fundamentally better and fundamentally more relevant to the job it's been given, and it would allow us to have a much better-informed discussion in this country about poverty—to start to understand and address the fact that Australia has the fourth highest per capita mean wealth in the world; in fact, Australia has the second highest per capita median wealth in the world. In other words, we are one of the richest people on the planet, yet we have more than three million Australians living in poverty, including almost one million children. There is a yawning disconnect between our nation's wealth—what the UBS annual wealth report determines about our median and medium per capita wealth—and the number of people living in poverty. We need to rely on the committee to better understand that and to start to address it, to start to understand why, in a country as wealthy as ours, people are living in cars, going hungry and not seeing their GP. I've heard instances of people living on dog food because they are so impoverished.

I move these amendments in good faith. I hope the government will look favourably upon the amendments and if they aren't prepared to support my amendments today then perhaps they will support a subsequent amendment, because I really think this is what the country and the community is looking for.

I would like to thank the member for Clark for the amendments. I acknowledge his interest and advocacy and his deep passion in tackling poverty. But the government won't be accepting these amendments. I think it is key to say that we share the same aspiration, but we recognise the multifaceted nature of poverty. The bill already references the need to consider factors and provide advice on economic inclusion, barriers, disincentives to work and inequality markers as well as tackling disadvantage. Amending the legislation to specifically reference poverty reduction will not change the committee's scope, given the broad scope that this bill provides to what is an independent committee. The interim committee has already reported on poverty and measures of poverty in its 2023-24 report to government and, as the legislation is consistent with existing terms of reference, we expect this will continue to be the case in future budget reports.

So we won't be supporting these amendments. I appreciate the member's focus on poverty and reducing poverty. Our government has taken many, many steps with our tackling-disadvantage package, our place based response, Measuring What Matters, moving to looking at this problem in its multifaceted way. So we look forward to continuing to work with the member for Clark, but we won't be accepting these amendments today.

I want to speak in support of the amendments just proposed by the honourable member for Clark. While I appreciate everything the minister just shared with us in the chamber, I think they're infinitely simple amendments and, as we will see when I speak later today about the amendments that I'd like to see made to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023, they're also in line with some of the concerns I have around this legislation and the fact that, while it has so much potential, the reality at the moment is that while it reaches for that potential it doesn't quite grab it with both hands.

We know that the government has been supported in bringing this legislation forward, thanks to some of the advocacy that's been happening on the crossbench in the Senate, and it is great to see that we can work that way between the chambers in this place. I would say, however, that where we can see that there are clear opportunities to strengthen legislation—to make it even better, to ensure that it actually does begin to deliver on the outcomes that the legislation has been constructed to drive—then that is something that we in this chamber should all be very open to doing. I also note that the member who has just brought those amendments forward has moved with people's best interests at heart. He has seen and heard from others across our community that these minor changes would actually make a significant difference to how this legislation is applied and how it works. Therefore, I just wanted to my voice to the member's in encouraging the minister and her team to take it up.

The 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.

Yesterday a very shameful thing happened in this chamber: every member of the Labor Party and the Greens voted against the coalition's proposal to back the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation and introduce an age assurance trial to protect kids from the dangerous material of online pornography. The eSafety Commissioner wants us to do this. The former royal commissioner into child sexual abuse, Robert Fitzgerald, wants us to do this. He condemned the government, along with 48 other experts including Alison Geale, the CEO of Bravehearts; the Daniel Morcombe Foundation; Grace Tame of the Grace Tame Foundation; and Anna Bowden, the CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in Australia. They condemn the government for not following this very clear recommendation from the eSafety Commissioner. What Minister Rowland wants to do, instead of following the eSafety Commissioner, is to let the pornography industry write the rules. It is absolutely outrageous. It should not stand in this parliament. We will continue this fight, because this is one of the defining issues of our era. There is nothing more important than the safety of children online. We're going to fight for it every single day, and we need a system of age verification to keep kids safe.

15 December this year marks the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and Uruguay. Australia and Uruguay are diplomatic partners with a proud history of cooperation on many issues, and this historic moment provides an excellent opportunity to continue deepening our strong bilateral links. We share high rankings in international democracy, equality and low-corruption indexes, in addition to offering conditions of political and economic stability. We share similar export oriented agricultural sectors, making us strategic partners. As far as back as the 1900s, both countries cooperated to improve their agricultural practices. Our joint public and economic diplomacy has seen a long history of collaboration to advance global reforms of trade, particularly agricultural trade. Both Australia and Uruguay are also strong advocates of multilateralism, human rights and rules based international trade, being founding members of the UN, the World Trade Organization and the Cairns Group. This friendship and this cooperation have made us natural allies.

As Chair of the Australia-Uruguay Parliamentary Friendship Group, I want to acknowledge the ambassador of Uruguay to Australia, Her Excellency Mrs Dianela Pi, who is in the gallery today. She is a good friend who brings incredible energy to her role. I want to congratulate Ambassador Pi on behalf of the friendship group and our parliament. I congratulate Uruguay on this great milestone, and I look forward to working with the ambassador to develop and advance our bilateral relationship.

I know I'm probably biased, but there's something pretty special about regional and rural towns: the sense of community, solidarity and pride. When you're lucky enough to be able to attend an annual country show like the one that I attended in Dorrigo on the weekend, you see that pride on full display. The people of Dorrigo certainly turned it on, showcasing the very best of agricultural produce and technical skill that our region has to offer, and it was heartwarming to see the next generation of farmers and producers getting amongst it and showing us oldies how it's done.

I had the pleasure of spending some time with local legend and Victoria Cross recipient Mark Donaldson, whose incredible service to this country cannot be overstated. Service to country starts with service to community. At the risk of embarrassing Mark, I will say that I watched him make the winning bid at the charity auction on several thousands of dollars worth of fertiliser, and, after securing his prize, he quietly donated it back to the Dorrigo Show Society, with no fuss, no fanfare and no desire for recognition—just like that. Thank you, Mark, for your generosity. Thank you to the Dorrigo Show Society. Congratulations to everyone involved in the Dorrigo show. I look forward to doing it all again next year.

I also rise to recognise the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and Uruguay. In 1948 the governments of Australia and Uruguay exchanged diplomatic notes, formally establishing a link between the countries. But this year also marks the 100th anniversary of the establishment of consular relations between our countries after the Uruguayan government sought and secured the right to open a consulate in Sydney in 1923. Although Uruguay and Australia are separated by a vast ocean and seemingly sit in different political hemispheres, our two countries share much in common. We are similarly ranked in terms of democracy and transparency in government and have shared commitments to advancing global free trade. I want to particularly acknowledge the Uruguayan government's compassion when, at the height of international border closures, they worked to ensure 97 Australians stuck on the Australian owned vessel the Greg Mortimer were able to dock, disembark and be transferred back home when so many ports were closed.

I would like to extend my congratulations on the anniversary to the Ambassador of Uruguay to Australia, Her Excellency Mrs Dianela Pi, and commend her for her tireless work on this important relationship. As a member of the parliamentary friendship group, I'm proud of the ongoing growth and development of this relationship and look forward to continuing to play a positive role in its growth.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone unaffected by the mounting cost-of-living pressures right now. Fuel prices are high. Rising interest rates are creating mortgage stress. A lack of housing supply is driving up rents. Trips to the supermarket see many people putting less in their trolleys each week. The cost-of-living crunch hits hardest when people are forced to choose between paying their bills, buying medication and putting food on the table.

It's under stressful circumstances such as these that people find themselves visiting community-run organisations like FoodShare. FoodShare provides food relief to those who need it when they need it. It literally puts food on the table for families, young people and pensioners. Last week I was delighted to visit Corryong, one of Indi's remote Upper Murray communities, to officially open the new permanent home of Corryong FoodShare Services there. More than 100 people from this little community of 1,300 attended the opening, and it was clear to me the positive impact that Corryong FoodShare creates in this small community. Pastors Carol and Douglas Allen and a large group of volunteers have worked hard to meet the demand for food relief and support following the Black Summer bushfires that devastated the region—demand that continued with border closures and lockdowns in the COVID-19 pandemic and demand that is growing as the cost-of-living pressures build.

Organisations like FoodShare are so important to regional communities across the country—now more than ever—and I thank them for their efforts.

Last week I had the absolute pleasure of hosting Sophie Wallis, a 16-year-old from Woonona High School, in my office for a week of work experience. I have known Sophie for over 10 years now after her mum, Susan, and late sister Gracie campaigned strongly for the introduction of the NDIS with my predecessor, Sharon Bird. Affectionately called 'Amazing Grace', Gracie Wallis was born with a hypoxic brain injury and cerebral palsy. We unfortunately lost Gracie in 2018, but Sophie and Susan carry on advocating. It was only fitting that Sophie was in my office when we had the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme come to Wollongong. Sophie has prepared this speech:

On 23 November the Hon. Bill Shorten, Minister for the NDIS, spent the day in the Illawarra.

We began with the official opening of Hearing Australia's newest centre, and met Charlie and Frankie, two remarkable children who receive support from the Figtree centre and the Shepard Centre nearby. Thanks to the work of these organisations, children like Charlie and Frankie can access support to broaden their communication.

We followed with an NDIS Providers Forum, where we discussed ways to improve and provide more support to the Illawarra's disabled community, and Mr Shorten was presented with a Certificate of Appreciation from Interchange Illawarra to thank him for his ongoing support.

We ended the day at Greenacres Disability Services, where we celebrated their 70th birthday.

Thank you.

Missy's Donors was an effort by a little 13-year-old girl in the Atherton Tableland to receive a bone marrow transplant donor. She has died. Match 4 Maggie was an effort to get a bone marrow transplant for Maggie in the Illawarra in New South Wales. She was 14. She has died. Liam O'Brien, my nephew, is still alive, and Bonnie Black in Charters Towers is still alive.

I want to put on record the thanks of the Australian people to Dr Mike Freelander, Dr Monique Ryan, Bert van Manen, Kate Thwaites and Ged Kearney. All of these have joined together, determined that this place get a million people on the register. We have the lowest rate of registration of any country on earth. If a million people are put on the register, we will save 700 lives a year, and no effort is being made to do that.

This is how hard it is. I rang up my old university college: 'Hey, fellas, can you give us 200 mouth swabs?' 'Yep. Come over tomorrow.' I was going back through Brisbane. I stopped off. It took me two hours. We got 200 swabs. Now, why isn't every university college in Australia doing this? Lower the age to 16 and you could get every schoolchild in Australia—

Thank you. Member for Chisholm.

On average, every 14 days a woman in Australia is killed by their current or former partner. To date this year, 68 women overall have lost their lives. Gender based violence is indiscriminate. It affects people of all ages, all cultures and all backgrounds. Violence against women and children, though, is not inevitable. We need to take serious action to address the drivers of gender based violence before it occurs. Our government is taking that serious action.

We have invested $2.3 billion in women's safety, including more than $326 million in prevention initiatives. We have a goal—it is an ambitious goal, but it is a necessary goal—of ending violence against women and children in a generation. Every woman and child in Australia deserves to live safely and without fear. This is an issue the government has treated with absolute urgency. One of the first things we did as a government was introduce family and domestic violence leave for all workers, including, critically, casual workers.

We will continue the hard work of doing what we must to eliminate gender based violence in a generation. I think this is one of the most important things a government can do, and I'm delighted to be part of a government that is committed to addressing this national problem.

Today in the Senate we're seeing the final consideration in detail of changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. What we're seeing is a clash of ideology versus reality. In the Senate, similar to this place, the speeches on the other side are all emotion. They are of saving the environment, but they have not one clue what that means. The fact is that someone's ideology is someone else's job. And we're not talking about the farmers' jobs; we're talking about the people who work in the canneries and the cotton gins.

It's not ideology; it's science.

You're not even in the Murray-Darling Basin!

Member for Hasluck! Member for Riverina, stop interrupting your colleague.

It's interesting; I think, from memory, the member over there comes from Perth, so that's absolutely on point. That's exactly the problem here: everyone's got an opinion, but not a clue, as to what's actually happening in the Murray-Darling Basin. The last time Toorale station was purchased, when Senator Wong was the minister, a hundred jobs were taken out of Bourke.

One hundred jobs! It mightn't mean much in Hasluck, but that means 10 per cent of the rate base of the Bourke Shire Council is now a national park.

So, when you're buying your dairy products from some Asian country and you can't get locally produced stuff, you can thank the Senate for the moment.

Stop this interjection! I mean it.

In the heart of Higgins stands a beacon of strength for my Jewish community. Founded in 1987 by the Rabbi Shimshon and Rebbetzin Rivkah when the Jewish community of Malvern was in its infancy, Chabad Malvern has grown to become a hub of educational, social and spiritual services that celebrates Jewish life and Jewish pride and, in doing so, strengthens the fabric of my community. From their early childhood learning centre, supported by diverse educators who are drawn to their values, to the after-school and youth programs, the worship services and a beautiful rainwater mikvah, there is something for everyone. Their service extends to first responders trained for medical emergencies, and they confront taboos like mental health disorders in a culturally sensitive way. The women's shabbat circle I attended was a sharing of ideas and of grief touched with humour in a climate of safety. It was followed by the kiddush, a communal meal, where heavy hearts were lightened a little.

In the face of rising antisemitism in Australia, Chabad Malvern stands as a sanctuary of spiritual solace, without which life would be unendurable. My heartfelt gratitude goes to the team for their tireless efforts in preserving social cohesion at a time when it has never been more tested. For my Jewish constituents struggling during this challenging time, I wholeheartedly encourage you to walk through their doors.

Last month on 24 October was World Polio Day. I'd like to acknowledge the remarkable progress in the fight against polio led by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. In nearly four decades, we've seen a 99.9 per cent reduction in polio, saving millions from paralysis and eradicating two polio virus strains. Yet challenges remain. Vaccine hesitancy, accessibility issues and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on immunisation rates remind us that polio anywhere is a threat everywhere. Recent detections in the US, the UK, Canada and Papua New Guinea underscore this. The GPEI's 2022-2026 strategy includes a novel polio vaccine, which is crucial not only for polio eradication but also for strengthening global health systems. Australia has significantly contributed, pledging $43.5 million through to 2026, but more is needed. The GPEI faces a $1.5 billion funding gap. Without sufficient support, we very much risk a resurgence of polio. I call on government to bolster our commitment to the global effort. Our continued support is vital for a polio-free world and for safeguarding global health security. The cost of inaction is far too great. Let's not allow complacency to undo our hard-won progress against polio.

I rise to thank the over 14,000 Canberrans who have supported Movember this year either by growing a mo or donating to the cause. Movember tackles head-on three massive issues facing Australian men—mental health and suicide, prostate cancer and testicular cancer. In Australia, 75 per cent of people lost to suicide are men. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer for men, affecting up to one in seven men by the age of 75. That includes my dad, my father-in-law, my two uncles and my grandfather. Testicular cancer has an average age of diagnosis of just 36 years.

In 2003, Movember started with just 30 people, and today their movement has grown to over six million people globally, including 2.16 million people in Australia, rocking their mos to show support and raise vital funds. They have raised a staggering $1.4 billion for men's health since they got started. I want to congratulate Movember for their fantastic work in supporting Australian men's health and wish them the best for their gala dinner tonight. I want to say to all the men out there: please go and get yourself tested; go and see your GP and talk about your health. We know that if these issues, particularly prostate cancer and testicular cancer, are picked up early, they're much easier to address. We love you. We need you healthy. We need you around. So go talk to your doctor.

The dangerous intersection of Seacrest Drive and Marmion Avenue in Sorrento has been identified by the RAC as one of the most hazardous intersections in WA, with at least 33 traffic crashes and countless near misses. Following a meeting on site with local residents, I informed parliament that more than 1,200 local residents had signed my petition calling for urgent action to provide a traffic management solution.

On behalf of our community, I also urged Main Roads and Premier Cook to take urgent action to improve road safety for our community. I am pleased to report that I received a letter in response from the Deputy Premier and minister for transport, the Hon. Rita Saffioti MLA, advising that Main Roads is now conducting a safety review on Marmion Avenue between Karrinyup Road and Ocean Reef Road.

More than 750 community submissions were lodged during the consultation period, with options now being assessed which include the installation of traffic lights at the intersection. The final stages of assessment are due to be released for public comment later this month. After a long community campaign, it appears that this notorious blackspot is finally receiving the attention it deserves to make our local roads safer.

This month I had the pleasure to head to out to North Ryde to see the future site of 135 new affordable housing units in Bennelong. This project, led by Link Wentworth Housing, is designed for low- to moderate-income families and is in a prime location.

Projects across the country just like this one will become even more viable because of the Housing Australia Future Fund. For the first time in a decade we have a government that actually cares about delivering more housing supply across the nation.

You will note, Deputy Speaker, that unlike the Liberals and Nationals, I'm not getting up here blaming migrants as cover for their ten years of inaction on housing. We are in a housing crisis because of lazy governments and poor policy, not because of migration. Our policy is to incentivise, build-to-rent, to de-risk affordable housing and to reward states for meeting housing targets. It will make a difference. More supply will get more people into homes, and policies like our Help to Buy and the home guarantee will make it easier for Australians to buy their first home. Blaming migrants for a decades' long housing crisis is lazy, it's divisive and it's exactly what you'd expect this Leader of the Opposition to do. Unlike him, this government is getting on with the job of delivering more affordable homes, just like the ones in North Ryde.

Just when the Australian people thought electricity prices couldn't get any worse, along comes the 'Minister for Energy Secrets' with a new plan. He says that intermittent wind and solar is so cheap it requires bucketfuls of the Australian taxpayers' cash to get anyone to build it. Can you believe it? Not only is it such a large amount that he's embarrassed to say how much it is, he's made it a secret. So, for all of those individuals out there—this is quite a miracle. 'Sh,' says the member for Riverina. What an absolute miracle!

Koalas? It doesn’t matter. Three-thousand acres of koala habitat? You can clear that for a wind farm. No problems there at all. Reliability? Forget all that. That's unnecessary. Costs to consumers and businesses? Don't care about that. Taxpayers can fund that. Taxpayers can fix it up. This Minister for Energy Secrets doesn't care what the cost is for taxpayers, for the Australian people.

How much will this proposal cost? Why is it a secret? The Albanese government said they'd be transparent. They're not. They're going to ensure that there are returns so high that industry super funds and overseas corporations will invest in projects that no-one else will build. Feasibility? Economics? Reliability? Engineering? Quite the miracle worker, this Minister for Energy Secrets!

In the last few seconds, can I just acknowledge one of my hardworking staff from my electorate office in Hervey Bay, Paula, who is in the gallery today. It's her first visit to Canberra. Welcome, Paula. Thanks, on behalf of all of our constituents for the very hard work you do in my office in Hervey Bay. Thank you so much.

WesCarpade, run by Camp Quality, is now in its 13th year and is one of WA's most established outback motoring events. It's affectionately known for it's wackiest and happiest motoring adventures. Since its inception, this event has raised more than $3.5 million for Camp Quality to help bring positivity, fun and laughter back into the lives of kids facing cancer. This year's recent event had entrants travelling from 'Wheat to Wharf', starting in Newdegate and ending in the port city of Bunbury.

Natalie Sangalli, one of my staff members, has participated in this event since 2014. She says that it began with an epic tour through the north of WA, where she met an awesome bunch of like-minded people and was hooked. The trips are full of fun, mischief and laughter. The team spirit and support between everybody has created lifelong friendships.

This year the wesCarpade teams raised over $304,000. The funds go directly to Camp Quality to help support children and their families facing the trauma of cancer diagnosis.

Camp Quality are actively recruiting for next year and would love for more entrants to join this unique motoring adventure. So, if you're in Western Australia and looking for something fun and worthwhile to do, this could be for you. My congratulations to all participants on a job well done with a lot of laughter and love.

Eighteen months ago the Australian people elected a Labor government to be led by this Prime Minister. Many Australians put their trust in Labor. But all we see time and again is Labor turning its back on ordinary people, including people in my electorate of Canning. In my community is the proud historic town of Pinjarra. It's one of WA's best towns—the pride of Peel. But there is a danger that runs through the town centre every single day. More than 690 heavy haulage trucks thunder through Pinjarra every single day, and, as our region continues to grow, that number will continue to rise.

Back in 2017 a whopping 84 per cent of the Shire of Murray's electors voted yes in a referendum for a deviation, which would divert hundreds of trucks away from the centre of the town every day. When I go to the people of Canning with a commitment, I deliver. With their support I secured $200 million from the former coalition government for this project—the Pinjarra heavy haulage deviation. But one year ago, in a stunning betrayal, Labor slammed the brakes on this project. They pushed back funding for stages 1 and 2 of the deviation. At the time I wrote, 'Are they kicking it into the long grass so they can quietly cut it?' True to form, those opposite shamefully axed this critical local project that many in my community support.

The people of Canning cannot trust this government or this Prime Minister. I make this guarantee to my community: I won't rest until the Pinjarra heavy haulage deviation is built.

We know that Australians are doing it tough. Inflation driven by war and weather and exacerbated by a decade of Liberal failures has put household budgets under huge pressure. But data released today by the ABS confirms the rate of inflation in Australia is finally falling. The data shows that headline inflation is down, underlying inflation is down and trimmed mean inflation is down. By every indicator, the fiscal policy interventions of the Albanese Labor government are working to reduce prices, easing pressure on household budgets.

In my electorate of Hawke alone, people have already saved over $1.1 million thanks to our cheaper medicines policy, 6,800 families are receiving cheaper child care, 83,000 people are eligible for more subsidised bulk-billed doctor appointments and our energy price caps have nearly halved wholesale energy prices. Rising interest rates having put working people under huge pressure. But, as these economic measures continue to filter through our economy, we look forward to seeing the pressure continue to ease on household budgets.

Despite the evidence that these interventions are working, the Liberals opposite continue to oppose them. Not content with wasting their own time in government, they are persistently seeking to undermine our efforts to clean up their mess. After a wasted decade, their legacy was limited to deliberate wage suppression, degraded supply chains, energy policy failures and a trillion dollars of Liberal debt.

Australians are struggling with cost-of-living pressures, rocketing energy costs and rising interest rates. We know that many in the caucus are worried the Treasurer's stale talking points are not cutting it with Australians hurting in this cost-of-living crisis. The man charged with solving these problems, the Treasurer, is a big Labor thinker who was kind enough to point this out to us in his dazzling essay in The Monthly. He reminded us that other big Labor thinkers have done the same thing—Kevin Rudd in February 2009 and Wayne Swan in March 2012. He cited the timeless wisdom of a Greek philosopher: 'No man ever steps in the same river twice.' You thought Yoda from Star Wars was good; this is next level!

Also next level is the list of reasons the essay gives us for why bad economic outcomes in Australia are not the Treasurer's fault. He's kept doing it all year, repeatedly saying Australia's high inflation is due to international factors. That's not what RBA governor Michele Bullock says; she says our inflation is homegrown. I say to Australians: do not worry about these minor details. Read the Treasurer's essay. It will comfort you. His big goal this year is to build a better capitalism, uniquely Australian. His promise is that 2023 is the year he does this. The good news is that in just over a month he will have finished the job. I say to Australians: don't be troubled. This big Labor thinker apparently has all the answers.

Well prior to becoming the member for Hasluck, I held concerns about the proposed North Stoneville Structure Plan. As I said in a deputation recently to the WA Planning Commission, the development is unacceptably risky. It brings increased fire risks for the community, with a road network incapable of supporting a major evacuation event. Our local community are not alone in their concerns. The proposal is not supported by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage or the local government. The Insurance Council of Australia, in its latest Insurance catastropheresilience report,implores planning decision-makers to consider more seriously the extreme weather and disaster risks when contemplating new developments. Prohibitively expensive insurance premiums, or underinsurance, exposes property holders, mortgage holders, renters, insurers and banks. We all need to adhere to the advice of experts. We need to look holistically at where we live and how we live. This government is heeding the advice of experts, working through a climate adaptation strategy, futureproofing building codes and planning in the face of increased disaster risks. In the context of 18 homes and 1,870 hectares being lost to fire just last week in the seat of Pearce, may every decision-maker—be they in local government, in planning authorities or at the federal level, or be they investors, the decision-makers behind every investment decision—heed that expert advice. (Time expired)

In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

I inform the House that the Minister for Skills and Training will be absent from question time today. He's attending the funeral of the Hon. Gerry Hand, former member for Melbourne and minister in the Hawke government, today on my behalf, representing the government. We will do the condolence motion for Gerry Hand tomorrow. The Minister for Education will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Skills and Training.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out breaking his election promise to deliver the stage 3 tax cuts in full?

We haven't changed our position on the stage 3 tax cuts at all.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government closing the loopholes that undercut workers' pay? What opposition has the government had to overcome to close the loopholes?

I want to thank the member for Newcastle both for the question and for her commitment to working people. The member for Newcastle has done something today that those opposite couldn't bring themselves to do—that is, the member for Newcastle decided to vote for the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This means we now have 27 times when those opposite have voted to keep wages low. They had nine years where low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of their management of the economy.

Then, as the legislation has come through on secure jobs, better pay and on closing the loopholes, at every possible opportunity they had to delay getting wages moving, to oppose an amendment that would improve wages, they voted no to getting wages moving, effectively continuing their position that they need to keep wages low. They were so determined to vote no that, when the member for Wentworth moved an amendment simply saying that this bill should be reviewed in two years time, they voted no to that as well. At every opportunity they have to look at anything that could in any way keep wages low, that's the side they'll be on.

I'm pleased that the closing loopholes bill has now passed the House of Representatives. I'm pleased that that means the legislation that gives a fair deal for casual workers has now passed this place. It gives minimum standards for gig workers, who had no minimum standards at all. There were no amendments from those opposite, no attempt to say, 'Maybe you should do the minimum standards differently.' Their position remained: if you're a gig worker, your minimum standards should be zero, no minimum rates at all.

Once again, just as they did last term, when the opportunity was there to say, 'Should it be a crime for an employer to steal your wages?' they voted no. They voted no to making wage theft a crime. It's not the first time they've done this. They did it to their own legislation last term as well. Somehow they think it's reasonable that, if someone steals from the till, it's a crime—as it should be—but, if the employer steals from the worker's wages, it's: 'Nothing to see here, no crime there at all.'

Finally, to closing the labour hire loophole, and I've got to say, for all the talk that they may have, dusting themselves with coal at different points, there's not a single coalminer in the country who doesn't know that, if a labour hire worker is doing the exact same job as them, with the same experience, the same level of skills, they should be earning the same amount of money.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. I've already had to mention the member for O'Connor and the member for Barker three or four times. They are now both warned. We're not having a repeat of yesterday. There's far too much noise.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been estimated by water market specialist Waterfind to cost up to $22 billion to deliver in full. Has the government undertaken modelling on the cost to taxpayers and the financial and social impacts on basin communities of water buybacks, which will drive up prices at the supermarket for all Australian families?

The first thing to say, of course, is that it's very clear that, last time voluntary water purchase happened, the largest year of voluntary water purchase, 2011-12, when almost 500 gigalitres of water was bought, food and beverage prices actually went down by 3.2 per cent. So let's not pretend that this is an automatic thing. The second thing I think it is really important to say—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I just said there was far too much noise in the chamber. The minister will be heard in silence, just as the question was heard in silence.

The next thing I would like to say is that those opposite, the National Party, are perfectly happy for anyone to buy water other than the Australian government, to protect the environment. They're very happy for foreign companies to buy water. In fact, more water is owned by foreign companies than is owned by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. They're very happy to sell water. The member for New England, the shadow minister, when he was the water minister, bought $80 million of water—

Order! The minister will pause. The Leader of the Nationals on a point of order?

On relevance, Mr Speaker—

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right.

Don't laugh at what you don't understand!

The Leader of the Nationals will get to his point of order quickly.

On relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was very specific, about whether the government have done any modelling on their Murray-Darling Basin Plan to communities and the cost of implementing that.

The minister has had a preamble. The question was not about the opposition or their policies. I'm going to direct her back to the question.

No, but—thank you, Mr Speaker—I would say, if the Leader of the Nationals really cared about farming communities, he would pass this legislation, because he knows that, if this legislation is not passed by the end of the Senate sitting period, then there will be automatic reconciliation that will drop water entitlements automatically.

You should know that.

Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.

When the member for New England was the water minister, he was happy to buy water. He bought $80 million worth of water from a company set up in the Cayman Islands by the shadow Treasurer. So they don't mind water buybacks if it's a foreign company, if it's the shadow—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The minister will pause. The minister needs to be relevant to the question. She's been asked about the government costing the buybacks plan and about cost for families. I need to make sure she's clear that her answer is relevant to the question. If she is not relevant, she will be sat down.

There has been plenty of modelling done, including by Sarah Wheeler, who is a well-respected economist who has shown that the modelling that the member claims shows that water buybacks push up prices is discredited. The modelling that the Victorian government is relying on is completely discredited.

The member for O'Connor is on a warning. It was made crystal clear that if he continued to interject he would leave the chamber. That is what he will do now.

The member for O'Connor then left the chamber.

They don't want to hear it. The modelling done by Sarah Wheeler and other economists has shown that there are all sorts of things that affect food and beverage prices—floods, droughts, fuel prices and labour shortages, which they did nothing to deal with for farming economies when they were in government. Other things that affect food prices are trade embargoes, like the ones this government has successfully dealt with. So, instead of pretending to help farmers, why don't they vote for the bill? (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. What does the most recent inflation data tell us, and what steps is the government taking to alleviate cost-of-living pressures? What approaches has the government rejected?

I thank the terrific member for Jagajaga for her question about today's inflation figures. Today's inflation figures show that annual inflation moderated from 5.6 per cent in September to 4.9 per cent last month. This was a substantial moderation and a much better outcome than the market expected. This means that monthly inflation is much lower than the 6.1 per cent we inherited at the time of the election last year. Let me be really clear about that. On today's measure, inflation was higher under those opposite than it is in the numbers that we have received today. We acknowledge that inflation is still too high and will be with us for longer than we'd like. These monthly numbers do jump around a bit, which makes the quarterly numbers more reliable. But the substantial moderation that we see in today's numbers is still very welcome and encouraging news.

We are making progress, but we know that people are still doing it tough. That is why we are rolling out tens of billions of dollars in cost-of-living help and why we are pleased to see very clearly in recent data that our cost-of-living package is taking some of the edge off inflation. Let me give you one example. Without our plan, electricity prices would have gone up 18.8 per cent between June and October, not 8.4 per cent. The ABS made it clear in their recent data that, without our plan, inflation would have been half a percentage point higher than it was.

This is the cost-of-living help that those opposite voted against. If they had prevailed in this House, inflation would be higher, wages would be lower and people would be in an everyone bigger financial hole than they find themselves in today. We need to remember that when they come in here and cry their crocodile tears about cost of living. They voted for electricity, rent and other key things to be more expensive, not less expensive, when they voted in this House. They are long on nasty negativity; they are short on solutions or credibility.

We are working for Australia and we are making progress in the fight against inflation. Our cost-of-living plan is taking some of the edge off inflation. We are getting the budget in much better nick in ways that have drawn the support of the IMF, credit rating agencies and the RBA governor when she was asked. We are investing in housing, energy and skills. We are cleaning up the mess that those opposite left behind. We see in today's new inflation figures some welcome and encouraging progress on that front.

I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation from Queensland, led by the Deputy Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Steven Miles MP, including the Mayor of Toowoomba and the Mayor of Isaac Regional Council. I also want to welcome the Mayor of the City of Palmerston, a guest of the Member for Solomon, Ms Athina Pascoe-Bell; the Ambassador of Uruguay to Australia, Her Excellency, Mrs Dianela Pi; and also, in the special visitors gallery today, representatives of the Movember Foundation, a wonderful charity doing amazing things. On behalf of the House, welcome to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

A shout-out as well for the crew from Movember who are here—Michelle Terry, the CEO, and Richard Deutsch, the Chair of Movember. It is the 20th anniversary of Movember. I'm advised by my staff who participate in Movember—sometimes more than I would like!—that they have raised over $1 billion over 20 years. That is quite an extraordinary effort, so congratulations to all who are involved and all who participate.

The Prime Minister is giving me a bit of stick about facial hair! I would say, as the father of two sons, one of whom has just come back from school sporting a mullet and a big mo, that other Australians should follow suit, even against their parents' advice. But do it in the name of Movember. If you are after a good cause to support, or if you're thinking of somebody who is far away but you would like to give an early Christmas present to, I'd advise all Australians to go to the Movember website to provide sponsorship and support to a very worthy cause. I commend all of those who are involved in the promotion and governance of a program that every Australian has really taken as a very special cause. Congratulations to all those involved. I'd love to be joining you this year, but perhaps a donation in lieu would be sufficient!

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. During the last election campaign, the government promised to expand the water trigger in the EPBC Act to include shale gas projects. Following the Pepper inquiry, the Northern Territory government also promised to not approve any shale gas fracking projects until this was completed and implemented. So, with several shale gas fracking projects in the Beetaloo Basin due to be approved in the near future, will the government ensure that an expanded water trigger is in place before any of these projects are given the green light?

I want to thank the member for Mackellar for her question and for her continued interest and advocacy for the environment. She has raised the issue of the water trigger with me a number of times, as has, I have to say, the member for Lingiari, who is raising it with me very often, and other members of parliament as well. Indeed, before the election, we did commit to expanding environmental assessments to cover all forms of non-conventional gas, including shale gas, and it's also part of our Nature Positive Plan that we released last year. Absolutely, we will do that. In the meantime, I have said that the federal government has made available to the Northern Territory government our Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development to assist the Northern Territory government or any other jurisdiction with these decisions. That's the same committee that would assess these projects once the water trigger is expanded.

I want to reassure the member for Mackellar and others who have an interest in this that we absolutely will keep this commitment. In the years since the original water trigger was added to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—at that time, coal seam gas was relatively novel—we've seen other forms of gas come onto the market, and, of course, it's just common sense that we need to cover those types of gas as well. We do need to protect our most precious resource—water—for all its important purposes. Yes, there are industrial purposes, obviously, but first among the important needs that we have as a community is drinking water. And there is not just that, but also the environmental impact of some of these projects is very important. We don't want to see chemical contamination of our waterways, of the environment, around these projects. We absolutely need to make sure that there isn't that sort of impact from the projects.

We also know that the water being used in these large projects can potentially have very significant impacts on fragile ecosystems through dewatering, and that's another thing that obviously the updates to the water trigger will deal with. We will continue to work with the member for Mackellar and with others on the crossbench who've raised this with me—with the member for Lingiari, who doesn't stop on this one, and others with an interest in this—to make sure we keep the commitment.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government tackling cost-of-living pressure in the face of obstruction? And what measures are taking effect in the coming year?

I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. Today of course there have been two issues that go straight to cost of living. One is the latest inflation figures, showing a moderation from 5.6 per cent down to 4.9 per cent. That's a good thing; it's heading in the right direction. The measures we've put in place are having an impact. It's not moving as quickly as we would like, but it does make a difference. The second issue of course is the passing of the industrial relations legislation by this House. That is aimed at lifting up wages, just like the measures we put in place to give a 15 per cent increase for aged-care workers has made a difference and just like the increase in the minimum wage has made a difference.

The Manager of Opposition Business interjects about a 'wage-price spiral'. Well, there's no indication from the Reserve Bank that that is happening. Indeed, he reinforces their opposition to any wage increase. The same people who said that a $1-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would wreck the economy are the people who continue to argue that, and that's why they voted against the legislation today.

We are making a difference in getting costs down for families, with cheaper medicines, cheaper child care and energy bill relief. We're getting wages up for workers, and we're getting the budget onto a stronger foundation. And more help is on the way from measures we've passed that will take effect next year. From 1 January we're increasing the amount of work that people who are on the age pension can do. All new age pensioners will commence with a $4,000 work bonus credit, allowing them to work more without affecting their pension. All 58 of our urgent-care clinics will be opened by the end of the year, meaning that families can get the care they need; they don't need their credit card, just a Medicare card. The National Skills Agreement will take effect, making an enormous difference. It means that from next year an additional 300,000 fee-free TAFE places will be coming online, making a difference for families and for people undertaking those apprenticeships and also helping with skill shortages right across the economy.

Opposition members interjecting—

Of course, those opposite continue to interject, continue to vote against everything, continue to be totally against every measure. They're here to get angry. I'm here to get things done, and that's precisely what my government is doing.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. The minister failed to prepare for an expected High Court loss and then falsely claimed that she was advised she would win. She claimed that urgent laws weren't necessary—until we wrote them for her. She claimed the coalition's preventive detention proposal was utterly impossible but now says parliament won't rise without legislating it. She can't explain how one of the criminals she released has disappeared. Minister, why is your job safe when the Australian public is not?

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting before the minister speaks.

I'll leave the political commentary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition there. I would say to those of you who are here in the chamber that I see that the opposition has had a little bit of a meeting this morning, and they've decided that they're going to spend today making a political attack on me. Well, congratulations. You can do that, and you're free to do that, but I would just say that it says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The minister will pause. There is far too much noise. The deputy leader was heard. The minister is going to be heard in silence. I'm now issuing a general warning.

The minister will cease interjecting while I'm speaking.

So will the Leader of the Opposition. So that means now no more warnings. If people interject, they leave. The minister has the call.

Let me compare and contrast a little bit about how the government has handled this High Court decision and what we've seen from those opposite. What we've seen from the government is that, within a week and one day of the High Court decision, we had released the people that the High Court ordered us to release under bespoke visas. We had set up a completely new regime of community protection. We had established a joint operation between police and ABF, who are case managing each of these individuals in the community. Now we have the reasons for the decision from the High Court. As I have said, I would have preferred that none of these people be released from detention. I support preventive detention, and that is why I will be bringing a proposal back to the parliament. We will be able to move through this quite quickly if we get the support and the cooperation of the opposition.

But what have we seen since this decision was made? We have seen three weeks of the most shameless politics I have virtually ever seen played in this parliament. That included the opposition's unbelievable action earlier this week, where the minister for immigration brought a proposal to this parliament to strengthen the laws that we passed to criminalise paedophiles loitering near schools—a pretty uncontroversial proposal. But what did they do? They came in and they voted against it. And there was only one reason for that: because they put politics above the safety of the Australian community.

But that's not all. We heard some very disturbing news earlier this week, when the minister for immigration revealed to us that a hand-picked member of the opposition leader's frontbench has used his position as a senator to advocate—

The minister will pause. The member for Casey has been interjecting throughout question time. He'll now leave under 94(a).

The member for Casey then left the chamber.

Honourable members interjecting—

Whoever is laughing down the back there—Member for Macarthur, I'm not sure if it's you, but there's far too much noise.

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The minister in continuation.

We heard some very disturbing news earlier this week that a hand-picked person on the frontbench of the Leader of the Opposition has used his position as a senator, not once but twice, to advocate for the release from detention of a child sex offender.

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is seeking a point of order. The minister will pause.

The point of order is on relevance. How can those remarks possibly be relevant? You, Mr Speaker, have ruled that constantly reflecting on the opposition is not an answer to a question from us to a minister.

The Leader of the House.

Just to the point of order, the relevance rule got really broad, I suspect, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition got to the tag at the end of that question, and that certainly opened it up.

The question was about the specific issues, and the last part of the question was about the Australian public not being safe. Some compare and contrast is allowed under the broad nature of the question, but the minister is in order. If she strays, I'll make sure she returns to the question.

I hope I'll get the opportunity shortly to return to the matter of Senator Smith and the utter failure of the Leader of the Opposition to show leadership on this matter. But, before I finish up, let me say this: we have to come together as a parliament now and find a long-term solution to this matter. We are here, and while you are in meetings plotting about your political strategy, we're in meetings doing the work and solving the problems we— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to the High Court reasoning announced yesterday? How is the government acting to keep Australians safe? And what approaches has the government rejected?

I thank my good friend the member for Bendigo for her question and recognise her keen interest in these issues. I want to begin of course by again thanking the members of the ABF and the Federal Police for their outstanding efforts working with state and territory law enforcement officials to ensure community safety—our No. 1 focus. And I want to say again that earlier this week we passed legislation through the House to make strong laws even stronger, as the Minister for Home Affairs just made clear. And I say again: we are working to make it an offence for recently released detainees to go within 200 metres of a school, daycare centre or childcare centre.

Opposition members interjecting—

Shockingly, members opposite, who are interjecting, voted against this—not once but twice.

Yesterday the High Court handed down its reasons, and we have made very clear that we want to put in place a strong and durable preventive detention regime, which is needed for the most serious offenders—something on which I would hope all members would agree, because we need this parliament to come together to make this a reality. And we expect the opposition to work with us on this, because it's not their tough talk that makes a difference; it is having strong laws in place.

I'm asked about alternatives. This week we saw that Senator Smith wrote a letter requesting that a convicted paedophile be released from immigration detention. He asked that he be transferred from Christmas Island into the community, knowing the serious nature of this man's offending. He still requested this release, as the Minister for Home Affairs just said, twice. Let me be clear: I didn't let him out.

Community safety is the utmost priority of this side of the chamber. But I can tell you who did make a decision: the Leader of the Opposition. That's right: the Leader of the Opposition intervened, as the then Minister for Immigration, to allow the convicted paedophile who is at the centre of the High Court case, NZYQ, to apply for a new visa, instead of seeking to have him removed from Australia. The Leader of the Opposition instead made a decision that enabled the man to stay in this country. The personal intervention by the Leader of the Opposition meant that he was allowed to remain in Australia until the day the High Court made its decision. This ultimately is his mess. Once again, this Leader of the Opposition talks tough but acts weak. It is time for him and his team to stop playing political games and work with us to keep Australians safe.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has been flat-footed and asleep at the wheel since the High Court decision on 8 November. That much and much more is obvious.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately.

The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again. He's going to be heard in absolute silence.

The government's been caught flat-footed and asleep at the wheel since the High Court decision on 8 November. The seriousness of this includes the release of one high-risk offender in the community—potentially a rapist, potentially a child sex offender. The government refuses to provide any detail. Can the Prime Minister update the Australian public on what risk there is to them? What detail does he have to give some assurance to the Australian people that this individual will be brought back into custody as soon as humanly possible?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question—and his dexterity in pointing out who was flat-footed, when they ran out of questions after four today! The fact is this. In the months leading up to the High Court's decision, the government was preparing for the possibility of the court's decision overturning coalition government legislation, with community safety as our primary focus. That is what enabled the government to respond quickly, to engage with police and officials—

The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Bowman has been constantly interjecting. He will leave under 94(a).

The member for Bowman then left the chamber.

There is a general warning. It's not a free-for-all. People can't feel that they can just say what they want when they want, constantly. The Prime Minister in continuation.

That is what enabled senior ABF officials to brief local state and territory police counterparts on the possible implications of the case, to establish Operation AEGIS in November. We then, of course, did have to comply with the High Court decision overturning coalition government legislation. But we applied strict visa conditions and monitoring requirements to the cohort, including daily reporting requirements—

The Prime Minister is answering the question directly, with detail. Out of courtesy, I will give the Leader of the Opposition the call, but he's got to state the point of order and not give commentary during his statement.

Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. You've made a point in relation to relevance. I'm happy to address that issue that you've raised. I asked the question, quite a serious question, of the Prime Minister, about an individual who is at large in the Australian community at the moment. The government refuses to provide detail about whether this person is a sex offender, a paedophile, somebody who is involved in serious—

Resume your seat. The Prime Minister was talking directly about the High Court decision on—

Order! Under the standing orders, the Prime Minister must be relevant to the question.

As the minister for immigration just pointed out, the High Court required the release of individuals with similar circumstances to NZYQ, who took the case. If NZYQ had been deported instead of being granted permission to apply for a visa by the person who was the minister at the time, the Leader of the Opposition, none of this would have occurred. None of this would have occurred because he wouldn't have been able to take the legal action. He asks about people. I will quote, from 26 April 2018:

Detainees at immigration detention centres on Australian shores have successfully escaped more than 80 times—

On the former government's watch, between 2013 and 2018—more than 80 times! Don't think that's 80 people. It's more than that, because:

… the total number of detainees who escaped detention during the period would be higher because some reported incidents have involved more than one person.

From 12 November 2014:

AN underworld figure capbable of "extreme violence" is on the run after escaping from a Victorian detention centre he was being held in as he awaited deportation from the country.

…   …   …

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison confirmed the breakout …

"I can confirm two adult male detainees absconded from the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre earlier today with outside assistance"—

(Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to keep the community safe in the wake of the High Court decision on indefinite detention? What other approaches to community safety have been raised?

I thank the member for their question. One thing has guided our government through the last few weeks as we've worked through this issue, and that is the safety of the Australian community. That is why we have moved as quickly as we have to implement the measures that have been executed so far, and that is why we are moving quickly to implement a preventive detention regime within the parameters laid down by the High Court 24 hours ago. I will say—the Prime Minister has made this absolutely clear to the parliament—we as a parliament will not rise until we have a preventive detention order in place, and I call on those opposite to come and support the work that Labor is doing to put this in place.

You would think that the government's approach to this matter would be bipartisan, because we have been driven by community safety, but we have seen and heard some extraordinary things from the opposition this week. On Monday we saw the opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, come into the parliament and vote to protect paedophiles over children. That's what they did. They voted to protect paedophiles over children. There was nothing objectionable in that bill, yet Labor's attempt to criminalise paedophiles loitering near schools was voted against by the Leader of the Opposition.

We have also heard that Senator Smith, a hand-picked member of the opposition leader's frontbench, chose to use his precious power as an Australian senator to advocate for a child sex offender. He didn't do it once; he did it twice. This is an individual who was convicted of child sex offences involving a teenage girl. In his second letter to the immigration minister, Senator Smith described that offending as being 'on a consensual and non-consensual level'. I'll leave it to the Leader of the Opposition to explain what Senator Smith could possibly have meant by 'consensual sex' with a child.

The Leader of the Opposition loves to talk tough—we hear it all day—on borders, on immigration and on national security, but the record just doesn't back it up. Surely, this is the simplest test yet. We hear again and again the Leader of the Opposition come into the chamber and make heartfelt speeches about child sex offences, yet he has an apologist for this conduct on his frontbench. He can do something to change it, and I call on him to do it.

My question is for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Al Jazeera has reported that Sirul Azhar Umar, who was sentenced in Malaysia for the murder of a pregnant woman that involved shooting her and then blowing up her body with explosives, was released from immigration detention into the Australian community not wearing a tracking device or subject to a curfew. Can the minister confirm whether this is true?

I thank the shadow minister for his question. I am unaware of those media reports. I'll obviously look into them. I can say, as I've said repeatedly, that every person required to be released by order of the High Court was so released and that, in respect of every one of the 141, strict visa conditions were applied initially. Then, following the passage of legislation that we were able to get through the parliament on the Thursday of the last sitting week, I was required to make a determination in respect of each of the persons subject to conditions after the passage of legislation, in respect of the additional conditions.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What are the recent practical steps the Albanese Labor government has taken in the pursuit of defence policy? Why is this required after a wasted decade?

Last Thursday, the Minister for Defence Industry, on behalf of the government, announced a strategic shipbuilding partnership with Austal which represents the first occasion on which the Commonwealth government have committed to continuous naval shipbuilding in Western Australia, and we are doing that by accelerating the delivery of Army's landing craft, heavy and medium. In the process, we will provide for a more agile and more nimble army which is capable of projection.

This is entirely consistent with the foundational thinking that has been undertaken in the Defence strategic review, the central thesis of which is to build for our country a defence force that is capable of impactful projection. Be it bringing forward the delivery of our nuclear powered submarines by a decade or properly investing in our long-range strike capability or restructuring our Army so that it is better able to operate beyond our shores, all of these decisions have been taken with the singular focus of giving us a defence force which can project—and that is how defence policy is done.

It stands in stark contrast to those opposite, because those opposite didn't do defence policy; they did defence politics. They didn't do strategy; they did hoopla. They spent the better part of a decade yelling at China, and yet at the same time they opened up a gaping capability gap with our submarines. They talked a massive game when it came to defence spending, and yet at the same time they secretly squirrelled billions of dollars out of the defence budget. But we should not be surprised, because that is how they operated and it is how they continue to operate—and across the board.

We have heard the Leader of the Opposition talk a massive game when it comes to community safety, and yet, at the very same time, a member of his frontbench is writing letters advocating the release of a convicted child sex offender. Right there is a test for his leadership, a test which he will fail just as he has failed to provide for the defence of our country.

Our government is very different. We have engaged in the strategic thinking and we are backing it up with the practical decisions which are keeping Australians safe.

This is a question for the Treasurer. In the employment white paper, the government says productivity growth must be the key driver of improvements in living standards over the long term. We have an extremely complex industrial relations system made more complex by today's passage of the closing loopholes bill. How could adding this complexity possibly improve our productivity?

I'm very grateful to the member for Curtin for her question and also for her interest and her engagement in the employment white paper that the government released not that long ago. I do believe that the lift in living standards that we desperately need as a country in the coming years will come from a more productive, more competitive and more dynamic economy. And I believe that the overwhelming majority of employers and employees and communities want to find a way to strike better agreements to get stronger wages growth and stronger productivity growth and less conflict so that we can prosper together.

I don't believe that the path to productivity in this country is to make people work longer and harder for less, and here's where I depart from those opposite in their approach to industrial relations. If you think about the closing loopholes bill that was before the House and which I'm proud to say passed through this place earlier today—and I pay tribute to the minister, to the cabinet and to the government for the effort that went into that—we will not get more productivity in our economy by letting wage theft go scot-free. We won't get more productivity in our economy if we make it easy for people to undermine agreements in our economy—agreements that are struck in good faith. We can't see those undermined. Undermining those agreements or letting wage theft go unpunished won't boost productivity in our economy. We won't get productivity growth by treating workers as some kind of easily discarded input into the prosperity that we want to create together as a nation.

Now, we know from the last decade of deliberate wage suppression and deliberate wage stagnation that that's not the path to better productivity outcomes. We know that because a decade of wage stagnation and suppression came hand in hand with the worst decade for productivity growth in the 60 years that these records have been kept. So we won't get productivity growth through harsh industrial relations.

I will tell the House and the member how we will get productivity growth in our economy after a wasted decade. We will get productivity growth in our economy by making it more competitive. That's why we have the process around competition. We will get productivity in our economy if we invest in our human capital, our skills base, if we make it easier to adapt and adopt technology and if we make it more effective to deliver care in our economy. We will get a more productive economy if we get the energy transformation right. These are the ways that a forward-looking, modern economy delivers productivity growth, which has been absent for too long because our vision has been unnecessarily narrowed by those opposite on industrial relations. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the Albanese Labor government's expanded Capacity Investment Scheme support reliable electricity, and what has been the response to this significant announcement?

I thank the honourable member for her question. What a difference she has made to the House since her very positive arrival in April. The honourable member asks me about the expanded Capacity Investment Scheme. It will support much more reliable energy right throughout our country. In fact, the 32 gigawatts of generation it will support will be enough for 10½ million households. It's important that we replace energy that is leaving the grid before it leaves. We had almost 27 gigawatts of announced generation leaving the grid under the previous government and no plan to replace it for nine years.

The honourable member asked me how the announcement has been received. Perhaps most importantly the state and federal energy ministers met last week and issued a communique. That communique was unanimous. The state and territory energy ministers, which include Labor ministers, a Greens minister and a Liberal minister, agreed and issued the statement, which said:

Energy Ministers welcomed the Commonwealth's significant expansion of the Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS). The Commonwealth's leadership follows an extended period where state and territory governments have led the energy transition through their significant investments and policy reforms.

I'm not quite sure what they were referring to there over the last decade, but it's true to say that states were leading through a very difficult period for energy policy. The Rockliff government in Tasmania also issued their own statement and said:

The Rockliff Liberal Government welcomes today's announcement that the Federal Government is taking positive action to support bringing more renewable energy projects online.

That was the Rockliff government backing the Albanese government on this very important initiative, as has every single state and territory government.

Energy users are the big winners out of better and more reliable energy. They have had plenty to say. The Energy Users Association of Australia said:

We welcome the announcement from the Commonwealth as it should provide a level of certainty for investors and consumers in these highly volatile times.

Energy Consumers Australia said: 'We welcome this morning's announcement which is both an important step in providing reliable energy to consumers and a continued firm commitment by the federal government.' So there has been a very positive response across the board.

Of course, there is one exception: the member for Fairfax.

I want to know how much it's going to cost.

He has been disappointed. He said in December he was worried that 'Labor killed the capacity mechanism'. He said in December that Labor had killed the capacity mechanism, but now he's worried it's still alive! It was dead in December and now it's still alive, according to the member for Fairfax.

What's the cost?

The last nine years was one long incapacity from those opposite. We are dealing with those nine years of delay and denial and we will create reliable and cheaper energy for Australians.

The member for Fairfax had a good go during that answer and he will leave the chamber under section 94(a). Order! The member for Fairfax will leave the chamber immediately.

The member for Fairfax then left the chamber.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. On 30 May 2023, the government told the High Court it was an agreed fact that there was 'no real prospect of NZYQ being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future', yet reports in the Guardian showed just last week that the Minister for Home Affairs said she had operational advice about the case and that it was likely that the government would 'avoid it by deporting' him. Did the minister sign off on the facts that the government put before the High Court on 30 May 2023?

Let me share a few facts that we have learned about this case with the House. The first is that we learned from the minister for immigration earlier in question time that NZYQ would not even have been here were it not for the incompetence of the Leader of the Opposition. Second, I will make no apologies for doing everything within my power to deport this person from our country. I'm not going to apologise for that. In fact, I would say again to the parliament that if I had any legal power—

Order! The minister is 30 seconds into her answer. The member for Wannon will only have one chance to raise a point of order on relevance. I'm not sure if he wants to do that right away.

Point of order.

Okay. I give him the call.

I was just calling for a statement of fact: did the minister sign off on—

Resume your seat. Order! Resume your seat. Member for Wannon, I gave you a hint that it had to be on relevance, and you got up and said what you wanted to say. So that's an abuse of standing orders, and you continually do that, and you'll leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Wannon then left the chamber.

It's really disappointing to see the shadow minister leave the chamber, because I actually have a few questions for him. I would like to know what role he played in bringing his party into this chamber and voting against provisions—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, members on my left! Order! The minister will pause. The minister will just return to the question.

Excuse me, Speaker. I would like to know what role the shadow minister played in bringing himself and his colleagues—

Opposition members interjecting—

They've already had their point of order. Don't you know the standing orders, Fletch?

Minister, I'm just going to ask you to pause. The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking the call, and I'll give him the call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a point of order on relevance, as you ruled the previous point of order was not on relevance. The question was: did the minister sign off on the facts that the government put before the High Court? It was a very tight question. The minister should either answer it or be directed to sit down.

There was some detail apart from what the manager has just said. There was a little more to the question, as I think the manager knows, because he's probably seen it.

On the point of order, there was not a debate in the question otherwise. There was a preamble to set the question, which didn't raise other issues for contention. All that they went to is that the shadow minister's question made reference to the High Court, the agreed facts and a quote from the government. It showed where it had been contradicted by the Guardian's article and asked the minister to clarify. There wasn't a second question. There wasn't reflection on the minister otherwise. The question was tight—

Okay, resume your seat. I know what the question is. I'm trying to deal with points of order, and I give the Leader of the House the call as well.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition just stated, the opening of the question referred to the High Court case. The High Court case had somebody acting in it, and those are exactly the circumstances of that person that the minister's referring to.

Just to assist the House, I'm going to ask the minister to go back to the question, not talk about the opposition and talk about the question that she was asked about.

Thank you, Speaker. Again, I make no apologies for doing everything I could to get this person out of the country. I contrast that with the Leader of the Opposition, because he's the reason that NZYQ was here to begin with.

My question is for the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. What's the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure that our local and regional roads are safe and adequately funded after a decade of neglect?

I thank very much the member for Paterson for her question. She knows how much investing in projects like Raymond Terrace Road means for regional communities. I also welcome the delegation of mayors from Queensland, whom I met with this morning—a really productive discussion. They do fantastic work for their local communities every single day.

The Albanese Labor government is strengthening its commitment to road safety by significant increases in funding to our local councils. Local governments require more funding to manage the rising costs and increased pressure on transport infrastructure due to climate change—something those opposite don't seem to think is happening—and the extreme weather events we are all experiencing in our own communities. To support this, this government doubled Roads to Recovery funding. This is for every single local council across the country. We are taking it from $500 million a year to $1 billion a year, something those opposite never, ever did. We're not using colour-coded spreadsheets to determine which local councils are winners or are not. We are making sure that every single local council across this country, in communities you represent, in communities the Independents and the Greens represent, in communities we represent—because we know how important local roads are. We know that local councils look after 75 per cent of our local roads. We know how important the doubling of this funding is.

We are also increasing the black spot road funding program—funding that, again, those opposite couldn't get the money out the door for. We want to make sure that every single dollar of that goes to local roads and goes to improving road safety. We are also creating a new program by merging the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program and the Bridges Renewal Program and increasing funding for local councils for some of the larger projects, which we know are often beyond their means to do.

What have other people said about this decision? We've got the CEO of GrainGrowers. The people that they represent might drive a bit on some of those roads. They've said they welcome the 'strong support for local road funding and look forward to working with the government to improve regional roads.' The National Farmers Federation have said they thank the government for the 'commitment to improving regional infrastructure though this new funding and we look forward to working with the Government to improve regional roads.' The Australian Local Government Association said, 'It is fantastic to see the government recognising the importance of local infrastructure and the key role it plays in building more resilient and connected communities.'

Only this government is committed to increasing money for local government and the roads that we all drive on every single day. (Time expired)

The question is for the Prime Minister. By 2030, 10 million passengers will travel through Western Sydney airport. Western Sydney residents deserve metros and roads like other areas. We travel long distances for work. The east-west metro has been cancelled, and now your government has cut $160 million from the M12-M7 connection yet still funded the Epping Bridge expansion with $220 million. Why is Western Sydney treated as second class and not prioritised given our disadvantages?

I thank the member for Fowler for her question. The premise of it, though, is completely wrong. As I have had discussions with Premier Chris Minns about, I am a major supporter of the second Sydney airport. I think it is a very important piece of infrastructure, and it is something that does require a range of infrastructure to be built around it.

Of course, Western Sydney airport would have been built had the Howard government, when they came to office, not cancelled funding for a project that was already under construction, had the sod turned and had funding in the budget—funding that was ripped out in the first Howard budget back in 1996. That's what happened. It would have been up and operating for more than a decade now, had that not occurred. The importance of Western Sydney airport is that for the first time, instead of everything turning towards the centre of the CBD, it would be turned outside.

Honourable members interjecting—

There is far too much noise between the minister for infrastructure and the member for Hume.

He's not even delivered a bus shelter!

The member for Macarthur will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.

There's far too much noise. I can't hear the Prime Minister's answer. I'm sure the member for Fowler wants to hear the answer as well.

The M7-M12 interchange is being built as part of a broader fully funded agreement between New South Wales and Transurban. The state government and Transurban were party to the agreement. The Commonwealth is not a party and was not a party under the former government. That's a fact. The interchange is an important project for the success of the new Western Sydney airport, and it's scheduled to open in 2026.

I know those opposite like privatisation, but here's something fully funded by a state government and a private entity that has the largest number of toll roads of any city in the world—in Sydney—yet there's a suggestion that the Commonwealth government should give them more money even though the project's fully funded. That's what's been suggested by those opposite.

The Commonwealth is making significant investments in Western Sydney, including $5.3 billion for the airport itself, $5.25 billion for the Sydney Metro Western Sydney airport and Elizabeth Drive overpass, and $1.6 billion for the M12. That is the Commonwealth's commitment, all under construction, all ready to go.

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government providing national leadership to bring about change and help end violence against women within a generation?

I would like to thank the member for Moreton for that question. On Saturday we marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, beginning 16 days of activism against gender based violence. The 16 days of activism provide us all with an opportunity to elevate the impacts of gender based violence and focus on what we can do collectively to end this scourge. One life lost to family, domestic and sexual violence is one too many.

I acknowledge that it's been a particularly tragic few weeks in Australia, with the number of deaths of women allegedly killed at the hands of their intimate partner being too high. Australians are rightly shocked by these deaths. This violence has to end, and that is why our government is committed to action and investment to address this violence. Since coming to government last year, addressing family, domestic and sexual violence has been a top priority. During our first 18 months of government, we have delivered the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and have secured state and territory agreement in this plan.

We've launched our First Action Plan and a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan. We've taken immediate and practical steps in all four domains of prevention, early intervention, response and healing recovery with our record investment of $2.3 billion in women's safety initiatives. We've reduced the time it takes victims-survivors to access financial and case work, through the escaping domestic violence payment; this is providing critical support when women leave a violent relationship. This is complemented by a legislated 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for all employees. We've delivered funding certainty for states and territories to deliver frontline services; this funding was due to cease on 30 June this year. We're building new safe places for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence so they have a safe place to go. We are holding perpetrators to account for their behaviour through identifying risks posed by perpetrators and supporting earlier intervention. For those perpetrators wanting to change their behaviour, we are delivering confidential telephone counselling and support.

Most importantly, we are listening to and learning from the experiences of people who have experienced family, domestic and sexual violence. That's why the appointment of our inaugural Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, Micaela Cronin, has been so important to ensure the voices of victims-survivors are elevated and central to policymaking. By working together across this whole parliament, we can make a difference and end violence against women and children in one generation.

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

I rise to acknowledge a truly great Australian, Professor Arnold Dix, for what he has done in once again improving relations between Australia and our great friends in India. Today, because of him and his hard work alongside the Indian authorities, 41 people are alive, safe and free. This is an extraordinary story. For over two weeks the world has been gripped by these 41 construction workers trapped in a collapsed mountain tunnel in northern India. As we know only too well, that's the sort of story that often ends in tragedy. But this didn't, and that's where Professor Dix comes in. He's the president of the International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association, and he is an expert in these sorts of matters. It was a painstaking process, tackling a disaster like none he had ever seen.

Professor Dix put it this way:

… if we make a wrong move, everyone dies. Not only does everyone die who is in there but probably us as well.

His wife sent him a message saying she didn't want him to go in, but, of course, he did. If people have seen some of his accounts, it's quite extraordinary what he did to help people who he's never met. He and his team have succeeded. These 41 lives have been saved, families have been reunited and our friends in India are quite rightly rejoicing. To Prime Minister Narendra Modi, I say I'm very pleased that an Australian was able to come to India's aid at this time.

Professor Dix summed it up best when he said, 'It's about helping your friends.' Two nations, Australia and India, are now in his debt. This great Australian, with his cool head, his big heart and his expertise in a very narrow area, I've got to say—I doubt whether anyone in this chamber knew that the International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association was a thing, but it is—is amazing. I pay tribute to him on behalf of, I think, everyone here in the parliament today.

I join with the Prime Minister in acknowledging the amazing lifesaving work of the professor, the work that's been undertaken that has resulted in the saving of lives and has brought to an end a very anxious period for the family members and loved ones of those who were trapped. There is some incredible expertise in our country, as you move around what is a very vast continent, with people in different sectors—in the medical sector, in the science space, in technology and of course in mining. Mining is one of the great strengths of our country, and we don't do enough to praise those people who do significant work and effort each day, each month, each year in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances, whether it's in the Hunter or in the west in my home state of Queensland.

The reality is that this country wouldn't be where it is today without the expertise of people in the mining sector with skills like the professor's. I want to congratulate him. We know that the mining sector last year contributed about $39 billion in company tax to this country—about one in three dollars paid by way of company tax, paid by the mining industry—which underpins the life that we know, that we experience in the cities and that sometimes we take for granted. In addition to that, mining contributed $24 billion worth of royalties. It is a celebration of his skill and of the sector and the industry that brought him to the point where he is today. He has the expertise because of the mining sector, and because of the education and experience that this country was able to provide him he is of international standing. We celebrate his success today.

I had lunch today with the high commissioner from India, who is coming to the end of his term. We wish him well as a wonderful friend of our country. This relationship continues to develop on many fronts, and so it must. We know that India is a true and dear friend of Australia, and we will always do whatever we can to provide support to the Indian people.

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

Most grievously.

You may proceed.

Today, the member for Sydney and the Minister for the Environment and Water made a statement that I had been actively involved in the process of a water purchase. She knows full well that all purchases were made at arm's length, independently, and I had no say in it whatsoever. She would be very aware of that from her own experience. What I might also say is that, coming from an irrigation area such as St George, where I am now, I was absolutely diligent in making sure that in no way, shape or form was I going to influence any purchase whatsoever.

Before I table the papers for today, I might give members a sense of what the rest of the day looks like in terms of the legislative program. After the MPI, there are some reports that have to happen. When we return to legislation, we have a short time to go on the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023. We will then try to deal with the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 relatively quickly. I'll get advice from the whips as to how many people are wanting to speak, but if it is a long list then we will move a debate management motion on that, because we need to get that across to the Senate.

We will then move to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Everyone will appreciate, with the Senate sitting next week and us not there till Thursday, if we want to make sure that we get through the legislation banning these symbols, we will need to be able to send it to them. I'm also very conscious that many members have speeches to give on this bill that are very important, so I don't want to cut speaking times short and I don't want to gag it in any way. With that in mind, I think the best way to do it—I've had some consultation with the Manager of Opposition Business, but we haven't reached an agreement or anything like that—is that at this stage we should work on the basis that when it gets to 7.30 we will negate the adjournment. We will then allow people who have prepared adjournment speeches to give them by leave for half an hour, and then we will continue debating the hate symbols bill. Obviously, it being after 6.30, there will be no quorums, no divisions or anything like that. That's the only way forward that I can see so we get the outcome that I think is strongly desired throughout the parliament for where we want that to land, without in any way preventing members from making speeches that are probably more important at this moment in time than they have been for many years, even though these themes are always essential.

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

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

"The Government's failure to build infrastructure and support regional industries which are the engine room of the national economy".

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Speaker, I think it's very clear to you, I think it's very clear to everyone on this side of the chamber and I think increasingly on the other side of the chamber that the wheels are falling off this government. There's a very good reason why the wheels are falling off this government. We're going to go through a list of what I think are the most hapless ministers opposite, and I'm going to give the gong to the most hapless minister they have. This is the reason why the government is failing and the government is falling apart.

I think the award this week for the most hapless minister has to go to the Minister for the Environment and Water. In question time today, the Minister for the Environment and Water made a ridiculous assertion, and it is a ridiculous assertion—why would I be surprised? I shouldn't be surprised that a minister who lives in the inner city of Sydney would not understand basic economics for food. She made the assertion today that the last time there were buybacks of water—and I'm assuming she's going to say her buybacks of water—means that food prices are going to go down. That is the most ridiculous assertion that I've heard in this chamber for a long time. She didn't go into how there's been speculation that this buyback of water will cost in the tens of billions of dollars to the Australian taxpayer. That's not modelling second and third round effects. There is the fact that we won't have as many food exports and we won't have as many people working in those industries that produce that food, and that's not even modelled into that number, and then she comes out and says that food prices are going to go down.

We know on this side of the chamber, because we represent those food growers, that food prices, the grocery bills of every Australian, are going up. Going up further, I should say, because it'll go up more than it already has because of the terrible decision that's been made by the Minister for the Environment and Water this week.

I think the minister we give the second gong probably could have won the prize this week too. They won the prize for the most hapless minister in the last sitting week, and they had a pretty good go at it this week as well, and that is the minister for immigration and citizenship. I mean, seriously. One of the major facets of any government is to keep your citizens safe. He's been looking like a deer in the headlights for the last two sitting weeks. The fact that the government sat there knowing that the High Court might make a decision that wasn't in favour of what they argued—we understand that the High Court decision didn't go in the way that you wanted to—the fact that they sat there on their hands and it wasn't until we, as the opposition, motivated them and got them off their butts to move that legislation is a disgrace. So he takes second prize.

The third prize winner is always a pretty good performer, especially for not looking after regional communities, and that is the Minister for Health and Aged Care. He's in the chamber! I welcome him. He stayed in the chamber. The decision that the minister for health made in relation to pharmacies is an absolute disgrace. This minister wouldn't understand it, but we do, we who look after the smaller communities. There are many pharmacies in our communities who are the only primary healthcare giver. They don't have large fronted shops. They're not setting a whole lot of stuff out the front where they can make other income. The decision by that minister means that many of our communities are going to have some pharmacies close and some pharmacies offer a lot less hours, which is devastating.

Another decision that minister made which gutted regional communities was the distribution priority area for GPs. That was for Commonwealth trained scholarship students or those who were foreign trained. He started to move the definition of that so that you could be under a distribution priority area and live in Rose Bay, but before it used to be targeted to those communities that didn't have a GP.

The other one that's got to come into it as hapless, because he's transgressed parliament, is the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What we saw this week—let's go back even further to the history of the worst immigration minister we've ever seen. He made the famous comment when he was shadow Treasurer and he said, 'If you don't like your policies, don't vote for us.' I think that we're going to remember that one next time around for that minister! But, he's going to be the minister for the lights going out. That's what he's going to be, but he's always a good performer.

I think I'm going to give the major gong now though, because she's a solid performer. She might not win the prize every day, she might not win the prize every week, but the minister for consistency, as she's always in the top two or the top three, is the minister for infrastructure and transport. You might say I'm being harsh, but let me remind you of why she wins the prize hands down. It's because she's consistent. Let's take the Qatar ruling. It's damaging to our tourism sector. Do we not want extra foreign tourists coming to this country? If you believe her reason for her decision, yes.

Exports out of Australia.

The Leader of the Nationals just reminded me that in the belly of those planes, too, would be exports going out. Do we not want extra planes for that? Apparently not. That decision reeked of cronyism and was very damaging to our economy. In fact, there were studies done, and it is going to cost our economy tens of millions of dollars each year.

Remember there was the 90-day review. She has the record now for how long a 90-day review can go, because it went for over 200 days. There is also what she says, because she's also a hypocrite, and I don't say that lightly.

Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: that term is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

I withdraw, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Hogan, I am just going to bring you back to the MPI, which is in your name. I'm waiting to hear you address that specifically.

The distribution priority area, pharmacies in our electorates, Qatar Airways and exporting are very much to do with regional Australia and regional industries. Let's go back to what the minister—

I'll just remind you that your topic is: 'The government's failure to build infrastructure and support regional industries which are the engine room of the national economy'.

The minister for infrastructure just won the gong. That's why she's taken the gong—the lack of infrastructure. Her 90-day review is very relevant to that, too.

Let's go back to what she said that was very contradictory. She said that we were a government that was all announcement and no delivery. She then accused us in the same breath of pork-barrelling. Those two don't go together. She then set up ribbon-cutting exercises which she went to and didn't let many of the members who fought for those projects even turn up to. That is why she wins the gong.

I take your point, Deputy Speaker, so I want to remind those opposite about regional industries. They would not know because this side of the chamber represents the majority of regional Australia and that side seems to very much be concentrated in the cities. So many of them wouldn't be aware of what I'm going to say. Regional Australia is responsible for the four biggest exports of this country. They are regional industries. There's the coal industry, the iron ore industry, the gas industry and the agriculture and farm industry—all regional industries. What the other side don't understand is regional Australia power them, feed them and house them. That's what we provide. We provide the food that they eat. We provide the energy that they need to turn the lights on. We provide the materials that they need to build their houses. But they do not appreciate that. As I said, the Minister for the Environment and Water supported that again this week by not supporting and taking water out of the Murray-Darling Basin system.

We can't all be left-wing academics. We can't all be environmental lawyers. Some of us are out there in the region doing real jobs. There is a real divide in this country at the moment. This side of the chamber is defending those people that the inner-city Labor people, the Greens and the Teals demonise. They demonise those in the regions who are feeding them, they demonise those people in the regions who are powering them and they demonise those people in the regions who are giving them the materials to build their houses. But I can say that the privileged elite that they are and the people that they represent will not demonise us and they will not stop us from doing what we do to continue this economy and this country's advancement.

Honourable members interjecting—

Just before I give the call: there were a lot of interjections across the chamber. The MPI discussion is a little more robust than others, but you're not actually helping your colleague at the dispatch box by yelling and screaming when I am struggling to hear, okay?

We had a lot of fantasy and made-up awards just then, but let me start with a real award, from Australian Doctor magazine, which was: who was the worst health minister in 35 years? Who did they vote as the worst health minister in 35 years? The now Leader of the Opposition. The National Party say that he is so good that he should be leading them to some future victory, but Australian Doctor magazine said of the now Leader of the Opposition that he was 'the dullest, least innovative and most gullible' health minister Australia had ever seen.

The Liberals and their mates in the Nationals spent 10 years making an absolute mess of infrastructure, and we have been given the responsibility of cleaning up the mess that was left behind. The National Party left us an infrastructure legacy with some $33 billion of cost blowouts. That's the legacy of the Morrison-Dutton-Joyce-McCormack government: $33 billion of cost blowouts.

Opposition members interjecting—

I will take the interjections from those opposite, because it was the National Party who decided that the North Sydney pool should get regional money, so I don't see how anyone opposite can give anyone on this side a lecture about knowing the importance of regional Australia when they themselves went and found a regional program to support regional sports facilities and said, 'Oh, let's get a colour coded spreadsheet, take $10 million and give it to North Sydney pool.' For those in the Nationals who might not know where North Sydney pool is, it's right next to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I'm sure the people of your electorates are very grateful that you took money out of those electorates and gave it to North Sydney pool.

I would also like to note my extensive gratitude to those on this side of the House for their strong commitment to infrastructure for regional Australia. The member for Lingiari supported an additional $350 million investment in the Tanami Road to connect our regions. The member from McEwen is supporting investment in the diamond interchange in Wallan and the Watson Street-Hume interchange at Wallan. The member for Paterson, as we heard earlier from the minister for infrastructure, has a strong commitment to the extension of the M1 Pacific Motorway to Raymond Terrace. I note that I have just mentioned more projects in regional Australia than the shadow minister mentioned in his entire-10-minute rant.

I also want to note that one of my colleagues who will speak on this a little bit later, the member for Bruce, does a fantastic job on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, cleaning up the mess of those opposite to make sure we get programs of integrity, leave the colour coded spreadsheets behind and ensure that all Australians can have confidence that the rorts and mess they saw for some 10 years will not be repeated. Again, I think it's reasonable that we have==

Honourable members interjecting—

Sorry, Assistant Minister. It's getting difficult for me to follow this debate. I asked for a little bit of quiet. I don't expect you to be a saint, but I do expect you to respect the standing orders.

I think what we see time and time again from the Liberal Party and the National Party is this ongoing confusion about who they, what they stand for and what they actually want. We saw that when they couldn't decide whether they wanted to increase or decrease funding. We had Senator McKenzie on Sky on 15 November saying, 'This government is not doing anything to rein in its actual spending,' in reference to infrastructure, but then, of course, the next day the coalition talking points changed and Senator McKenzie was out there complaining about the government's responsible economic decision-making when it comes to the infrastructure pipeline. No wonder we don't know what it is that those opposite stand for.

And while we're talking about supporting regional Australia, I also want to give a shout-out to the public servants who work in regional Australia, delivering services. We just saw the Leader of the House table the State of the Service report for 2023. The report notes that there are some 21,861 public servants working in regional Australia, which is 12.8 per cent of the Australian Public Service workforce; 698 of them are in Western Australia. I had the good fortune of meeting with a number of them in Geraldton, where I was just a few weeks ago—public servants delivering the National Disability Insurance Scheme, delivering work for Services Australia and Centrelink, and delivering services such as Medicare services for people in regional Western Australia. And I met with public servants who work in Albany, supporting those who might be in grain growing, or in some of the fantastic distilleries that are popping up in Albany, or working as teachers or in local governments and fisheries and so many other things, or indeed in renewable energy. Again, I thank all those public servants for all of that work.

We also know that in the great state of Western Australia for some reason the National Party are unable to get anyone elected to the federal parliament. We've seen time and again the National Party trying to get people elected in Western Australia and, for some reason, the Western Australians don't want to vote for those opposite. With the National Party of WA that low representation means the Leader of the Opposition sees Western Australia as a flyover state—which explains why he recently spent so much time in India.

I would like to talk about where the Leader of the Opposition spent his time from 1 to 4 November. The Leader of the Opposition early this month told the Australian media that he was going to India. A press release of 31 October said:

During this trip Mr Dutton will meet with political representatives, business leaders, and visit organisations supporting schooling and education programmes, as well as addressing an event at the India Australia Strategic Alliance.

But that wasn't the entire story. The Leader of the Opposition had hired some PR professionals as his communications partner, and they sent out a very different press release to the Indian media, which outlined that Australia's opposition leader and former defence minister Peter Dutton was 'set to make a momentous visit to India, accompanied by a delegation of 20 influential industrialists'.

So, he wasn't just addressing an event; he was taking an entire business delegation. But he never told the Australian media who was on this business delegation. Even those in the National Party don't know whether there was anyone from regional Australia on this special business delegation. Who was on the delegation? The Leader of the Opposition gave two speeches to international audiences—never distributed them, never made them available to the Australian media. Again, we don't know whether he mentioned anything about Australia's iron ore trade or anything else. The Leader of the Opposition gave two interviews with Indian media. He did an interview with NDTV News and CNBC TV—again, couldn't distribute the transcript. Maybe they're too busy in the opposition leader's office, or maybe he has something to hide. He didn't even tell us who was on this 20-person delegation. He mentions only the member for La Trobe. Again, what didn't he want to tell us about this special delegation? Why didn't he tell us about the lavish dinner he attended with Naveen Jindal, an Indian billionaire? Why didn't he tell us about the meeting he had with the Planning Commission of India—maybe getting some ideas for the next work that he wants to do in regional Australia? I don't know. Why didn't he tell us who was on the delegation? Maybe it was because the delegation included an unlicensed real estate agent, a disgraced Liberal candidate, unregistered migration agents—there, sitting right next to the Leader of the Opposition—property developers, people who'd had restrictions placed on them by ASQA and even those who were the subject of an Age investigation.

I think even those opposite would like to know, when they talk about their leader in this place—I think you have a right to know—who was on his delegation, how they were selected, what they do and who footed the bill. The only person who was there actually promoting the Leader of the Opposition's trip was the member for La Trobe. He was out there, showing on Facebook how great it was to be there with the opposition leader. At the same time, he was criticising the Prime Minister for the Prime Minister's travel.

Opposition members interjecting—

I am going to remind this chamber for the final time: I think it would be a little bit embarrassing for the person who put the MPI to be thrown out of the chamber during that MPI. I would like to hear the member for Gippsland. I'm sure you've got a marvellous contribution to make to this debate and I want to hear you in silence.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Claydon. I hope you can protect me from the wet lettuce attacks that are going to come from those opposite. I cannot believe that the grand old Labor party sent the member for Perth to argue and discuss a matter of public importance dealing with regional issues and infrastructure issues. The man who represents a seat of 80 square kilometres came in here from the great state of Western Australia. He didn't mention iron ore and didn't mention farmers. The only time he mentioned agriculture was when he talked about the bureaucrats working in Western Australia.

Now, you've had your chance. It was 10 minutes I never want to live through again.

Is this a point of order?

It's a point of order. The member was here for my speech. I did mention iron ore, and he knows that.

That is not a point of order, although you will have opportunities to correct the record.

I thank the member for Perth. I will check the record because, if he did mention iron ore, the Treasurer's going to be after you, champ! Do you remember the budget night speech? He couldn't say 'infrastructure'. He couldn't say 'roads'. And the Australian economy was being kept afloat by the things we sell overseas. He didn't mention iron ore, coal, gas or agricultural products, because they're dirty words in your party.

The old Labor Party used to stand up for blue-collar workers. When you were the old Labor party, everyone in Australia knew what you meant when you actually stood here and said you were going to back workers in the community.

Now, the new Labor Party—the member for Fremantle knows where I'm going here—has sold its soul to left-Greens activists in the cities. It sells out blue-collar workers every day of the week. The old Labor Party used to fight for blue-collar jobs in our cities and in country areas. This new Labor Party just sells out blue-collar workers every day for Greens preferences, and they go quiet because—guess what?—they know it's true.

To send the member for Perth, who represents 80 square kilometres, out here to talk on issues relating to regional Australia was a matter of extraordinary contempt and disrespect for regional people. There are other speakers who are going to speak in this discussion today. The member for Maranoa might be speaking. He represents 750,000 square kilometres. I think it's about 49,000 square kilometres for the member for Riverina. My electorate's only a measly 30,000 square kilometres!

Size isn't everything.

We represent farmers. We represent those regional industries that make a difference in our communities.

Now, I did hear an interjection from somewhere way down the back that said that size doesn't matter. That's an interesting interjection, coming from another genius who doesn't represent a regional seat and would be lost if he ever turned up in one. I'd just like to say to those opposite: get out of the cities every now and then and actually understand the impacts of your policies on the people who generate the wealth of our nation.

This matter of public importance brought forward by the member of Page says it all:

The government's failure to build infrastructure and support regional industries which are the engine room of the national economy.

I mentioned the Treasurer's budget night speech, in which he couldn't even say 'coal' and 'iron ore' and 'gas' and 'agricultural products'. This lack of respect for regional industries, this lack of understanding of how our communities work actually leads to a lack of investment in the infrastructure we need, and it leads to policies that destroy jobs in our communities. The two best examples right now are Labor's approach to the native hardwood timber industry and the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin.

This Prime Minister said he would govern for all Australians. Well, he can tell that to the timber workers in my electorate who are going to lose their jobs in 4½ weeks time. He can tell that to the irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin who have had their water bought back. Those communities are going to suffer as a direct result. Not one of those opposite, particularly those from Victoria, has had the guts to come in here and call out the Victorian government's appalling and illogical decision to ban the native hardwood timber industry. Not one of them has come in here and raised any concerns at all.

The timber industry has a very clear issue: either you use your own wood, sourced sustainably, or you use someone else's. What the Victorian government is doing—the Western Australian government has done exactly the same thing—is decide that they're going to take other people's wood rather than use their own. There is not enough plantation timber. Right now, Victoria is taking timber from New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland and America. That's where the timber's coming from. The member opposite is finally speaking out on behalf of the timber workers. I've never once heard him say it on behalf of the Western Australian or Victorian timber industries.

As to the water issue right now—and the member for Nicholls understands this very clearly—if you take water away from productive agricultural land, it is impossible for the food price to go down. The Minister for the Environment and Water is pretending that somehow taking water away from productive agricultural land will result in lower food prices in the cities. It's simply not possible.

So I say to those opposite: stop selling out blue-collar workers and regional communities, because those inner-city Green votes are not going to stick with you when the times get tough, and they're certainly not going to support our regional industries, which we depend on for the wealth of this nation.

I'll just start by correcting the record. I actually didn't say size doesn't matter; I said size isn't everything, as the National Party were rattling off the sizes of their electorates in square kilometres as if somehow that meant something.

I will also just make one point: yes, people who represent city areas have every right to talk about regional issues. Indeed we should. Many of us are a little more familiar with them than you give us credit for. You might have forgotten that I was a senior exec in regional development under a Liberal-National government. We had a few hundred staff right across regional Victoria, and it was an incredibly rewarding job. We were out there every day engaging with regional business and regional industry, running regional planning and doing local government grants right across the great state of Victoria.

Opposition members interjecting—

So you can take your snobbery and leave it outside the chamber.

Really, they're settling into opposition well, aren't they? If ever you needed some evidence of that, it's that this is the debate they choose to bring. It is another day ending in y, so it's another National Party scare campaign on infrastructure. They could have focused on the cost of living, the No. 1, 2 and 3 issue—the first, second and third issue that Australians are worried about. They could have talked about what we're doing to put downward pressure on electricity prices, provide cheaper child care for families and establish 60-day medicine prescribing. They didn't want to talk about that, about the bulk billing incentive or about the fact that wages are growing at the fastest rate for a decade. They could have discussed the urgent work that the government's doing to fix the Leader of the Opposition's unconstitutional laws that have let criminals out into our community. They could have talked about that but didn't want to talk about that. Labor in opposition told them the laws were unconstitutional, but they went ahead and passed them anyway. They could have talked about why they're protecting paedophiles over children. They don't really want to talk about that, do they? They could have talked about the red-hot labour market, with 500,000 jobs created, more than under any first-term government in Australia's history, more than 80 per cent of which are full time. Inflation is coming down. They could have talked about the good economic signs today. They don't want to talk about that, do they? They could have talked about the budget surplus, the first budget surplus for 15 years. The former government didn't manage one in a decade. They don't want to talk about the trillion dollars of Liberal debt they left. No, what they want to do is run a silly scare campaign on infrastructure and regional roads.

Is this a point of order, Member for Page?

Deputy Speaker, you picked me up on a point of order about—

What's the point of order?

Relevance. You picked me up on a point of order about not mentioning regional industries and regional infrastructure, which I believed I was.

It did in the beginning, and I am listening—

He has been way off topic for a long time now, Deputy Speaker.

No, he did mention regional industries. He started with the whole lot at the beginning, and I'm listening carefully to the debate.

I actually just said this is a silly scare campaign on infrastructure, regional roads and regional industries. Let's be clear on what they're trying to do. They're trying to convince people that the government's cut infrastructure funding. That's what this is about. They're trying to convince people that the government's cut infrastructure funding. Well, let's just deal in some facts. No infrastructure funding has been cut from the $120 billion pipeline—none. Fact 2: all states will now receive more dollars under the Integrated Investment Program. Fact 3: over the next 10 years, more than 400 nation-building projects are expected to be completed or substantially progressed. Fact 4: it's this government, the Labor government, that has doubled the Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to $1 billion, something the former government never managed.

So what was the infrastructure review about if it wasn't about cutting funding? Well, it was a review of every project that the former government announced, and what it revealed was at least $33 billion of cost blowouts; a choked pipeline that couldn't have another project added for 10 years, which is clearly ridiculous; and the former government's utter mismanagement. Some of that's inflation, but overwhelmingly it was bad planning, because time after time they just made numbers up. Apparently in government you just make up a number—this is in Liberal-National world, in their imaginary budget, in the government that was—and you put out a press release, and then somehow the road gets built; somehow the train will just appear. That's not how things work in the real world. That was exactly how they managed the Defence portfolio: 28 projects running 97 years late because apparently people could just go onto the battlefield and say: 'Don't shoot. I've got a press release.' Apparently you can drive down a road that this mob put out a press release about one day getting built.

We are cleaning up your mess. They're confused. They still haven't worked out if they want to spend more or if they want to spend less, because at the same time they criticise us for spending too much they're arguing we should spend $33 billion more and push up interest rates. What a bunch of incompetent— (Time expired)

This matter of public importance debate today is about infrastructure. It is about regional industries. There are a few familiar faces trawling the halls of parliament today, and we welcome them. The Speaker welcomed some of them in question time at 2.15. He referred to the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Steven Miles. He referred to the mayors from Toowoomba and Isaac regional councils. The mayors of Ipswich and Western Downs are also here today. One would wonder: why would they all come? As a coterie, why would they be here in late November, when there may be better things to do in Queensland? But no, there are not. What they're here for is to lobby the infrastructure minister, because they are annoyed. They are irate. They are cranky. And they have good reason to be, because they know—even though the member for Bruce may not—that, indeed, 252 projects have been cut out of the infrastructure investment pipeline. They know that the Roads to Recovery funding that Labor promises will not be seen until a third term of the Labor government—and God forbid that happens.

I want to read to the House some quotes. I will, at the end, tell the House who wrote, who said, who uttered these quotes:

We will stand up to the federal government, we will stand up to the prime minister and say Queensland deserves its fair share and nothing less.

And: 'I want to make it very clear again for Minister King that this infrastructure review does not have our cooperation.' And this one:

Any deviations from the currently agreed 80-20 funding split on regional corridors and 50-50 on urban corridors will significantly disadvantage our regions which are amongst the most decentralised and road transport reliant in the nation.

And 'Queensland has not and will not co-operate with the federal infrastructure minister's cuts,' says another. 'My message to the federal minister is simple: do not try to rope us into your bad decisions.' And this:

The commonwealth government has an arrangement with Western Australia, which means effectively that NSW could be worse off from the GST payments in the years ahead, we've got a state commonwealth health agreement that hasn't been signed that sees NSW lose out an enormous amount of money because of the complete collapse of GP services in the community … Taxpayers pay a lot of money in income taxes to the commonwealth government and we deserve our fair share.

And another:

It is not the NSW government whingeing. It is voters and the state taxpayers in NSW that deserve to have access to world-class education and functioning hospitals and infrastructure that's been promised.

And this, from somebody else from that fine New South Wales state:

NSW is disappointed with a capital D as a result of the Commonwealth's decision to yank funding to the tune of billions from the state.

We are likely to be $1.4 billion worse off over the forward estimates. At the same time the NSW population is surging, the Commonwealth's investment is faltering.

And then this:

Funding splits ... and what the federal government's thinking on that is very much a matter for them. I'm very much focused on ensuring that ... we do get our fair share of funding.

And this:

It would be concerning if the federal member for Ballarat, Minister King, sought to walk away from regional Victoria, that would be concerning and disappointing.

Those quotes hardly come from Liberals and Nationals. Do you know who they come from, Member for Page?

No, I don't.

I'll tell you. You wouldn't be sure, because you would actually think that they would be somebody who would not be of a Labor variety, but they come from, in order: Annastacia Palaszczuk, Mark Bailey, Cameron Dick, Chris Minns, Daniel Mookhey, Jacinta Allan and Danny Pearson. They hold important positions in the governments of Queensland, which is Labor; the government of New South Wales, which is Labor; and, indeed, the government of Victoria. It's all Labor. Now, often when you're a minister you get criticised. Sometimes it's grumbling in corridors from those in the states who would like a fairer share, but these people have been public. They have been open about it. They have been vociferous about it. They haven't held back, and Deputy Premier Miles isn't holding back today, because he knows that the funding has been cut. He knows that it's going to hurt infrastructure in Queensland. He knows that it's going to hurt regional industries. If all of those Labor premiers, Labour treasurers and Labor roads ministers know, why doesn't the federal Labor government do something about it? Labor knows. The states know. Why doesn't the federal government know?

():  In speaking on today's matter of public importance, I couldn't help but note where the opposition says:

The government's failure to build infrastructure and support regional industries which are the engine room of the national economy.

One thing I do agree on is that the regions by and large are most definitely the engine room of the national economy, but, in relation to our government not supporting infrastructure and regional jobs and businesses, I just want to talk about my own seat and statistics I feel refute that argument pretty well when we're talking about the regions. My seat, the seat of Paterson, is most definitely a regional area.

In the reporting period from 1 June 2022—remember that there was an election just preceding that—to 30 June this year, our first 12 months, I had 12.8 per cent population growth across the three-year period within that spectrum. I have in my electorate a and 175,578 people. We've got 15,473 businesses and nearly 800 new ones in that 12-month reporting period. So it is true that people are flocking to our regional areas, and it's not just because they are places of immense beauty. It's not just because they are places where you can get a good job, whether it be in mining, whether it be in heavy industry, whether it be in tourism, whether it be in some of the really cutting-edge, novel businesses that our growers, our farmers are getting involved with. There is so much opportunity in the regions, and I think that's why I feel so affronted by this argument today that says our government is not backing the regions.

In my own electorate we have in excess of $3.5 billion dollars that has been put to infrastructure on roads alone. This incorporates over $2 billion for the M1 motorway, which takes a bypass around Raymond Terrace. That has been such a battle to get, quite frankly. I've been here for just over seven years, and I can tell you that for the last seven years my colleagues and I have fought for this piece of road to be funded and finally commence building. That has happened, and I couldn't be prouder of that. We've also been working on Raymond Terrace to Karuah and upgrades to the Newcastle airport, and I couldn't be prouder of that piece of infrastructure that this government has backed in. Not only did we strengthen the runway at the Newcastle Airport; we also have built a new terminal. When you go to Newcastle now, you see this amazing facility being built. We're going to be an international airport. Again, this is our government backing in the regions. We are going to create good, well-paying jobs in regions like mine, in the Hunter region, for decades to come.

Our government has also committed to $2 billion to deliver thousands of new homes for people, whether they be social homes or more affordable homes across the regions. Since being sworn in, the Albanese Labor government has made a profound commitment to close that urban-rural divide. I get really upset when we pit places in Australia against each other. Not all of us can live in a city, and not everyone wants to, but, by the same token, people who live in the regions love visiting our cities. Cities are great places. I really do get sick of this worn out old cliche where people say, 'It's the city versus the bush.'

Well, it is.

It actually isn't. This is where you've got it all wrong. I will take that interjection. It is not the city versus the bush at all. It is time in Australia that we all worked together. We need people from the cities to be joining our regional areas— (Time expired)

You don't have to look hard to see that Labor doesn't give a hoot about regional infrastructure investment. In fact, Labor created a funding vacuum for more than two years, where regional councils and community organisations have been unable to access federal funding for community infrastructure projects. Labor scrapped the coalition's Building Better Regions Fund in February 2022. Labor's replacement, the Growing Regions Program, won't see funding hit the ground until April 2024. That's two years. Community infrastructure projects therefore will languish for at least two years.

The pain for regional communities doesn't stop there. In my home state of Victoria, Labor announced $2.57 billion worth of infrastructure spending in their May budget. However, $2.2 billion of that has been gobbled up by the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop—funny about that—exempted from Minister King's razor gang review. Other projects for Victoria include $150 million for the Camerons Lane Interchange at Beveridge, 55 kilometres from the centre of Melbourne, and $57 million for the Ison Road Overpass, less than 35 kilometres from central Melbourne. That means 93.6 per cent of the budgeted infrastructure spending that the member for Ballarat and minister for intra-structure, Catherine King, announced for Victoria will be spent within 55 kilometres of the centre of Melbourne. Regional Victoria was left with a paltry 6.3 per cent of the total budget. That's no accident. Labor don't hold seats in outer regional Victoria, and what do they spend there? Nothing. It is beyond contempt.

More than 200 days after the minister announced her 90-day infrastructure review, the government's response has been more cuts and delays to critical infrastructure projects across the country. Seven point four billion dollars worth of projects have been cancelled, 50 major projects. As the member for Riverina has stated, there are potentially 252 projects, all up, that have been axed by the Albanese government. In my electorate, for the critical Swan Hill Bridge, incredibly important to that community, $6 million has been allocated—out of the $60 million that we had committed to over a number of years—to planning. There's no guarantee the other $54 million is going to be committed to the Swan Hill community. It is a serious disgrace.

In Labor's scorched earth approach to clinging to power, they are hammering the regions with the heaviest hits from their cuts, with regional infrastructure projects cut by 30 per cent. Worse still, this chaotic government is cutting future funding for projects to a fifty-fifty basis. This is instead of contributing to major regional infrastructure projects on an 80-20 basis. You see, the coalition understands that regional communities do not have the dollars. The councils don't. No big businesses out in the country have the ability to put in a fifty-fifty split on major infrastructure. That simply leaves regional communities out in the cold. It is an absolute disgrace. The kind of funding that cities have cannot be compared with that of regions.

To add insult to injury, it looks Labor has cut the Roads of Strategic Importance program, which invested in upgrades to many secondary highways and freight routes in my electorate, which are critical to moving agricultural and resources products to ports and markets and are critical to tourism. Once again regional communities pay the price for Labor's chaotic and destructive policies.

These programs are wholly or partly in my electorate. What am I supposed to tell my constituents who are facing chaos on their unsafe roads and who are losing out left, right and centre under Labor? I drive those roads. I know how dangerous they are and the number of B-doubles and triples that traverse those highways. It is appalling that Labor has no idea how bad it is. I would invite the minister to come driving up into Mallee sometime and try to stay safe on those roads. She needs to do a lot more to put her eye on regional communities.

When I looked at this MPI today I thought [inaudible]

I don't think we've got a mic on you, I'm sorry.

You would have thought that this was two years past its date, because, if we want to talk about a failure of investment in regional Australia, we only have to look at those opposite and we only have to listen to their contributions. The member for Riverina, a bloke I've got a lot of time for, in a five-minute contribution couldn't spend one minute talking about what they did. In fact, he couldn't defend anything that they had done. The member for Mallee talked about roads. How many terms have you had and you haven't fixed a thing—

You're in government!

whereas we've been in for 18 months—I know; we are in government. Let's take that interjection. We're actually delivering where you never did. You never delivered a thing. You couldn't deliver a pizza on a cold night, let alone major infrastructure, because what we've seen is nine years of press release, nine years of no investment in seats like McEwen and nine years of cuts to grants for councils to fix roads and infrastructure. We saw nine years where the slashing of infrastructure funding was the order of the day under the former Liberal-National government. And what did we get the end of those nine years? Victoria only got a total of seven per cent of the infrastructure spend. Now, those Victorian MPs that have spoken or are maybe going to speak might want to say why they supported that—why they believed that was fair and reasonable.

We just heard one of the members talk about the Camerons Lane interchange. What a fantastic, great thing. It's being built by our government, after fixing up the Inland Rail, which was not only 1,500 kays behind but four years overdue and $32 billion overspent. No wonder the 90-day review took longer—because it was such a big mess. It was a huge mess that was caused by those opposite: all press release, no delivery. We never saw money for roads. We never saw money for infrastructure. The only time we would see those opposite on this was when they wanted to bring out a press release, and they never actually delivered.

I want to tell you another little story, Deputy Speaker, a little story about a little man who came out to visit my electorate recently. We'll call him the Leader of the Opposition. He came to Wallan, a great town, to talk about how great the coalition were and how bad Labor was. But do you know what he couldn't find? He couldn't find one piece of infrastructure delivered by a Liberal and National government. Every single piece of major infrastructure was delivered by Labor. In fact, he was going that badly that he brought out two failed Lib candidates, and they had to drag one from Traralgon to get a full table. That's how badly he was going. They couldn't show a thing for 10 years in power, apart from roads being bad, rail being bad—and every other piece of infrastructure in that community.

As for the diamond interchange, the member for Riverina, to give him credit—I always have—came down and looked at it when we were there on a very tragic day. He saw how it was and he supported it. But sadly, because of the internals of those over there, he wasn't there to see it through and the money was ripped away. So it was never delivered; it was never put in place. In fact, the disgraced former member for Aston, that Alan Tudge—old touchy Tudge—actually wrote a letter—

I think you need to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw. He was very sensitive, when this was raised, about taking the money out of the Hume Highway upgrade to try and put it into the Wallan interchange, which turned out to be the car park rort scheme—which is why I said he was touchy; he was very shy about talking about this. He wouldn't answer questions about it.

When we talk about this, we've got to sit and think. You hear the Nationals continually barrel on, carp on and whinge about how bad things are for people in regional seats, but do you want to know the one thing those electorates have in common? It's the National Party; they're National Party seats. The National Party were in government for 10 years, yet those seats have still got bad education standards—as we've seen—bad health standards, bad job standards and bad infrastructure because the National Party gave up on farmers many years ago. They're not interested in what farmers farm. They're only interested in what can be dug out from under the ground. That's why, when the Victorian government said, 'No coal seam gas,' the Nationals here opposed that. They want coal seam gas. It's our government that's fixed up exports to our major trading partners that they neglected for years—in fact, stopped. So, if you want to fix regional communities, don't vote National; vote Labor.

The wheels are well and truly coming off this government, and I think we could have some analysis as to why. Good governments have got to have ministers who understand their brief. If they don't understand their brief, my advice to those ministers is to come out and talk to the people who are affected by their decisions. The Minister for the Environment and Water is a serial offender. She hasn't been to my electorate to discuss the incredibly damaging Murray-Darling Basin Plan and what it means to people in my community. Her complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the issue of water was laid bare in the answer to the question that I asked her today. I asked her if she had done any modelling to say how much this would cost, and I asked her what the socioeconomic impact would be on basin communities. I did not get an answer. What I did get was this comment: 'The Nationals are happy for anyone to buy water except the government.' She thought she was having a real crack at everyone. The Nationals are happy for anyone to buy water except the government—and do you know why? It's because, when the government buys it, it gets taken out of production. When the government buys it, it sits in the weir as environmental water. There's more environmental water than the people administering the environmental water programs can possibly use. If you understood regional Australia, you would understand that. She doesn't understand that, if you take water out of production, the price of food goes up because it gets more expensive to purchase water and to grow food.

Government members interjecting—

If any of the people over there understood how agricultural businesses work, they would know it's about input costs. In my electorate are people growing apples and pears, and there are dairy farmers. They're listening to this minister say, 'If we make one of your inputs much more expensive—that is, water—then we're going to be able to offer a cheaper price to Australian families.' If you go to any pub in Nicholls or in any of your electorates—the pubs that are still open—it's not going to pass the pub test. Labor is not backing regional communities by ripping irrigation water out of those communities. Blind Freddy can see that.

I will turn to the subject of infrastructure, in the time I've got left. I'm new to this place. I spent a lot of time lobbying the previous government to build infrastructure in my electorate. What I saw was a fantastic minister, the then minister for infrastructure and transport, actually fund and build something called the Echuca-Moama Bridge. All I see over there is 'Gunna'. Do you know that bloke down at the pub called 'Gunna'? They call him 'Gunna' because he always says he's 'gunna' do something. I went for a run over the Echuca-Moama Bridge. It's not a press release; it's a bridge. Very soon, people in Shepparton are going to have nine return services on the train to Melbourne and back thanks to an infrastructure upgrade funded by the previous coalition government. That's not a press release; they're actually building rail. It's going to improve people's lives. It's going to help people go back and forth to Melbourne.

My advice to those opposite is stop being a 'gunna'. Stop saying, 'We're gunna do this.' Build something.

I have an interjection about the Shepparton Bypass.

No, it wasn't.

Well, let's talk about the Shepparton Bypass. The Shepparton Bypass had $208 million committed to it by the previous federal government. It's a critical project. We have to pull heavy transport out of the middle of Shepparton. We have to get a second river crossing. The federal government stumped up the money for it to try and get a recalcitrant state government to move on the project, and the first thing that happened when Labor got elected federally was the money was gone. You have got to actually fund regional infrastructure and build it if you want to have any credibility. We built it; they haven't. (Time expired)

I sat here and listened to particularly the member for Page but also other members on the other side, and I was quite surprised. I know that a number of the National members stood up and talked, but I'm surprised the member for Durack hasn't said anything. The member for Leichhardt has said zero in terms of infrastructure in remote Australia. Let's not just talk about regional Australia as being down on the eastern seaboard. There are also communities in the north where infrastructure under the previous government was sadly missing or neglected. It's hypocrisy from members that have stood up and said that they did this but delivered nothing.

In my part of the world in the Northern Territory we have just come out of a long hard decade of neglect and underinvestment. The Nationals and their Country Liberal cousins have no standing when it comes to investing in the Territory or our remote communities. Our roads, our schools, our social and community infrastructure, our regional businesses and our regional tourism industry—all of the foundations of our regional communities—were forgotten by the previous government.

A few months ago, I travelled out bush to the Utopia region. Members opposite probably wouldn't even know where Utopia is. I've stated in this House on a number of occasions that the standard of living and infrastructure there is nothing that I have ever seen anywhere else, with old men and women living in tin sheds, young people crying out for jobs and people working desperately to keep their communities going. If there is a poorer part of the country, I have not seen it. It was the Liberal-National government that ripped the hearts out of these communities and prevented them getting the help that they needed, first under Howard and Mal Brough and then under Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. CDEP was privatised and jobs were removed from communities. Housing was left to rot. Our communities had fewer and fewer opportunities. The Liberal-National legacy in the Northern Territory is a disgrace and one that they should hang their heads in shame about. It is a horrible one, and I certainly won't be taking their pretend concern for our regional communities and infrastructure seriously.

The MPI today refers to supporting regional industries. Later today I will be tabling a report on the inquiry into workforce development across northern Australia. The state of the workforce development in northern Australia is troubling. We cannot expand industries and we cannot grow regional economies without a thriving and robust workforce. With a lack of housing, a lack of skill development and a lack of proper resourcing for our regional councils, all of this has compounded over many years and has caused major structural issues for our workforce in Australia. These issues did not start in the last 18 months; they've been building for many years. They were left completely unaddressed by those opposite, who stand up and thump their chest to say that they delivered for regional Australia. They delivered nothing.

With the many issues, the Albanese government has begun the hard work of rebuilding our regional communities particularly in the Northern Territory and in the electorate of Lingiari. We have seen the biggest investment ever from the federal government. We're sealing roads, we're upgrading schools, we're reforming the remote employment program, we're building the necessary houses, we're investing in renewable energy, we're investing in regional communications and blackspots and we're increasing resources for local government. Local government exists in the Northern Territory; local government is not only on the eastern seaboard. I've spoken with many local governments in Lingiari, and they are saying how much the difference the increased Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program has made to them in the Northern Territory.

With my limited time, I just want to say that the increase of $500 million to $1 billion each year for local government has to be applauded. (Time expired)

The discussion has concluded.

I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Caledonia and Fiji from 28 August to 1 September 2023, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

I would like to start by acknowledging my colleagues who were part of this delegation to New Caledonia and Fiji. It was a pleasure to travel with the member for Solomon, Mr Luke Gosling; the member for Mallee, Dr Anne Webster; the member for Longman, Mr Terry Young; and the member for Fowler, Ms Dai Le. I thank them all for their keen engagement and camaraderie during our time in the Pacific. It was a privilege to lead to the delegation.

New Caledonia and Fiji are not only our close neighbours; they are countries with whom Australia has strong historical and ongoing connections. Delegations such as this are vital to building on those existing relationships and strengthening our shared commitments to a secure and peaceful region. Australia's consular-general in Noumea was Australia's first overseas diplomatic mission in the Pacific and our fourth in the world. Many Australians visit New Caledonia each year, and, having now visited this beautiful country, it is clear why. Our visit to New Caledonia was an opportunity to gain an insight into a complex system of government—one in which the French state, Congress of New Caledonia, the government and the assembly of traditional councils of the Kanak indigenous peoples known as the Customary Senate all play a role in developing law and policy.

The delegation heard that the effects of climate change, the need for energy transition and the significance of regionalisation are key considerations for New Caledonia. The delegation was honoured to meet with Mr Remi Bastille, the Prefect of the French High Commission in New Caledonia; the President of the Congress, the Hon. Roch Wamytan; the President of the Government of New Caledonia, the Hon. Louis Mapou; the President of the Customary Senate, Mr Victor Gogny; and many of their esteemed colleagues.

A particular highlight for the delegation was visiting the headquarters of the Pacific community SPC, the largest regional organisation in the Pacific providing policy and technical services to address the development priorities of its Pacific members. Australia is a founding member of the SPC and its second-largest financier. During our visit we heard from specialised staff members about the SPC's work on climate change, gender equality and gender responsive budgeting as well as recent works supporting disability accessible election processes in Fiji. We also had the opportunity to tour a new ship belonging to the French Armed Forces in New Caledonia, and heard about its role in maritime security, environmental protections and patrols to prevent illegal fishing and other illegal activities.

After a brief stopover in Vanuatu, the delegation then travelled on to Fiji—another of Australia's close Pacific neighbours. During our visit, we were pleased to attend the parliament of Fiji, meeting with the honourable speaker, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, and the chairs of Fiji's parliamentary committees. We spoke about the importance of exchanging knowledge about the parliament and its operation, the development of induction programs for new parliamentarians and finding the balance between parliamentary sittings and undertaking committee and electorate work. We were also honoured to meet the Fijian Prime Minister, the Hon. Sitiveni Rabuka, albeit briefly as we crossed paths at the airport.

We also visited Australia's Maritime Essential Services Centre, a development under construction through an Australia-Fiji partnership, visited a local Australian building company and enjoyed lunch with the Australia Awards alumni working in the Fijian health sector. A particular highlight was our visit to the Nausori Municipal Market and its women's accommodation centre, which was developed with Australian support. We were incredibly moved by the warmth of our welcome, which included some incredible singing and a walking tour through the markets. We heard that over 1,000 mostly female vendors who sell their wares at this market can now, thanks to the accommodation centre, stay overnight safely and securely. We visited a local primary school, where more than 50 children had gathered on their day off to participate in a sports clinic, which has been developed as part of the Australian government's sports diplomacy strategy. We got out there on the field—and perhaps I'd better recognise the member for Fowler for her efforts on the rugby field—with the children as they played rugby and participated in activities that develop their critical thinking around respectful relationships, gender stereotypes and violence. The positive impacts of this program were clear, and we were grateful to have been invited.

Finally, it's important to mention that the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme was a key theme during our visit. Fiji has of course participated in the scheme for some time, and we met with some of the returned PALM workers, who spoke about their experiences of working in Australia and the impact that scheme has had on their lives. Discussions regarding New Caledonia's potential participation in the scheme are now beginning, and we heard significant enthusiasm during our visit there. I know I speak for the entire delegation when I offer my sincere thanks to the people of New Caledonia and Fiji for their hospitality and their warmth and to the Australian officials for their excellent support during our busy visit. I encourage all members to consider this report, and, with these comments, I commend the delegation's report to the House.

by leave—Thank you very much, Member for Boothby. I had the honour of joining my first foreign assignment—the bilateral parliamentary delegation to New Caledonia and Fiji—with the member for Boothby, who led the delegation, the member for Solomon in the Northern Territory, Luke Gosling, the member for Mallee, Dr Anne Webster, and, of course, the member for Longman, Terry Young. The objectives of the delegation included fostering and strengthening Australia's links to these countries' respective congress, government and parliament while also gaining insight into the bilateral relationship we have with the two countries.

More specifically, the delegation had the opportunity to hear about the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, PALM, and the experiences of workers who participated in the program. As we know, PALM is a scheme which lets Australian businesses hire workers from nine Pacific islands and Timor Leste in order to fill the labour gaps in rural and regional Australian agricultural sectors. It essentially addresses Australia's workforce shortage for labour intensive jobs while allowing Pacific communities and workers to circulate money into the economy. After speaking with various workers from the Pacific involved in PALM, the wide consensus was that the workers loved working in Australia and had strong sentiments for the prospect of returning. In the face of Australia's labour shortage in agriculture and related food product manufacturing, this is a very favourable outcome for our country. According to the National Farmers Federation, food industry bodies were short of 172,000 workers in 2022, resulting in prolonged inflated food prices and reduced food availability in the coming years. By filling these labour gaps, PALM also functions to mitigate a factor that is currently contributing to the cost-of-living crisis, an issue that my Fowler electorate is substantially impacted by. It was promising to see the strong relationship being developed between Australia and the two countries. I was able to witness firsthand Australia's prominent working relationship with New Caledonia and France in partnering to promote mutual security interests with regard to maritime zones, environmental protection, humanitarian responses, illegal fishing and trafficking. It was also wonderful to see Australia and Fiji's growing defence and security cooperation. As close neighbours, we share an enduring bilateral relationship. It is important that we are a country that Fiji can rely on.

The delegation in Fiji also coincided with the second Pacific Islands Forum Women Leaders Meeting, in Suva. This hosted conversations with leaders from across the Pacific about gender based issues, including safety and economic security, which are felt acutely across the Pacific. I was very impressed to see the notable size of markets, most of which were run by female vendors, and to learn that the vendors came from the rural countryside to the city in order to sell their goods with the support of the Fijian government. In particular, accommodation facilities were provided to women to relocate to the city as this allows them to market their goods in safety. I was very grateful to hear individual stories from the women vendors about the impact this project has had in assuring their security.

In my Fowler electorate we have over 5,000 constituents who are of Pacific ancestry. This is a community that plays an active role in Fowler, and I'm regularly engaged with groups, including the Fiji Diaspora Women's Alliance, who are passionate about supporting Fiji women and girls, and the NSW Fiji Business Council, who promote Australian and Fiji based business links. I'm beyond grateful as this opportunity has allowed me to gain insight and deepen my understanding of the Pacific community that I work closely with, and I intend to continue fostering this relationship.

I'd also like to thank the Australian officials in Fiji and New Caledonia for looking after us so well, as well as, of course, the great leadership of the honourable Louise Miller-Frost, the member for Boothby, leader of our delegation. It was a great, insightful experience, and I thank the chamber for giving me the opportunity to speak to the report.

by leave—I also had the great privilege of visiting New Caledonia and Fiji as part of this delegation led by the member for Boothby. I thank Fiona at IPRO for her meticulous assistance, as well as the DFAT post and heads of mission for facilitating this visit. While in New Caledonia, our delegation fostered links with the local congress and the government and also gained an insight into the operation of the Customary Senate, an advisory body representing the indigenous Kanak people. I met with a couple of young Kanak leaders here in the parliament today.

On the delegation, we progressed the conversation on the potential include of New Caledonia in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme as well as gained insight into bilateral trade relations and way to strengthen them. I particularly enjoyed our meeting with the French armed forces in New Caledonia. On the morning of 29 August we were given a tour of the new patrol boat AugusteBenebig, and the captain, the commander of the maritime zone of New Caledonia, was very generous with his time. His colleagues provided an overview of the French armed forces in New Caledonia with regard to maritime security, environmental protections and patrols to prevent illegal fishing.

France is a major security partner of Australia in the Pacific. Indeed, French forces participated in this year's Exercise Talisman Sabre, which included serials that were conducted out of the Top End RAAF bases in Darwin and Tindal. Australia and New Caledonia share much in common. Foremost is our interest in stability in the Pacific. While transits in Vanuatu, I enjoyed the opportunity to meet some Australian Army soldiers who worked with the Vanuatu Police Force to install a new resilient emergency communications system across Vanuatu, extending coverage to Tanna and Malakula.

After that, moving on from Vanuatu to Fiji, our visit helped to continue to strengthen Australia's links with the Parliament of Fiji and to deepen the bilateral relationship. The delegation travelled to the site of the Maritime Essentials Service Centre, a development under construction through an Australia-Fiji partnership. We were provided with a briefing on the facility, led by Australian Army Captain Ben Carruthers from 19 Chief Engineer Works of the Australian Army, based at Randwick barracks.

We also met with the Minister for Housing and Local Government, the Hon. Maciu Katamotu Nalumisa, and several returned PALM scheme workers, with whom we chatted about their experience in Australia. They explained that their ability to participate in the scheme was very positive, and it provided access to much higher paying jobs than they could access domestically. In the Northern Territory we've had the honour of hosting 163 Fijian PALM workers, who worked in Voyages Indigenous Tourism Australia's Ayers Rock Resort, down at Uluru-Kata Tjuta. We welcome Fijian PALM workers in my electorate in Darwin any time at all.

It was a real highlight, as the member for Boothby and other members mentioned, to meet the Prime Minister of Fiji, Sitiveni Rabuka, during our time there. Australia and Fiji share a strong and enduring bilateral relationship, underpinned by the Fiji-Australia Vuvale Partnership. This renewed partnership elevates a shared commitment to tackling climate change and strengthening our trade partnership as well.

In her first week as foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong travelled to Fiji. She has visited all 17 of our fellow Pacific Islands Forum members, demonstrating the absolute importance that Australia places on these relationships in the Pacific. The Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Pat Conroy, has also visited Fiji and plans to continue that engagement in the new year.

Our visit was a wonderful opportunity to strengthen ties with both New Caledonia and Fiji at a time when Australia reinvests in its vital relationships with our Pacific family. I was proud to reinsert the importance of those links in a meeting this morning with a group that was attending the Pacific-Australian Emerging Leaders Summit, here in Canberra. It was great to meet Grace again, in particular. She is a Fijian Australian. She's living in Darwin, in my electorate. She works at Robertson Barracks as an administration officer, and she's studying IT at Charles Darwin University. She is a great ambassador for both countries. It was a great delegation into the Pacific. I was proud to be a part of it.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia.

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

by leave—I'd like to begin by thanking the other committee members and particularly the secretariat—who have joined us here today in the chamber—of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for all of their hard work in organising hearings and the publication of the inquiry report. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made a submission to the inquiry, which was a substantial number of individuals and organisations.

There were six recommendations outlined in the main report. My coalition committee colleagues and I have submitted a dissenting report. Our first recommendation is that the articles of UNDRIP should be considered when the government is developing legislation and policy on matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A policy approach to implementing the UNDRIP remains our preference.

Our second recommendation is that the government consult with established bodies regarding the application and reporting against the UNDRIP, such as through the Closing the Gap reporting process to parliament.

Our final recommendation is to support recommendation 5, which is contained in the main report, to enhance awareness of Australia's human rights framework, Australian history and general civics. The coalition members believe that increased awareness and education regarding the human right covenants that Australia has endorsed will lead to greater appreciation, compliance and reporting. Importantly, educational efforts surrounding the settlement of Australia should include a factually accurate and balanced telling of history. This should detail past injustices, existing gaps, the progress Australia has made and an acknowledgement of Australia's development into one of the most egalitarian countries in the world.

The coalition members do not recommend the development of a national action plan as called for in the main report. During the inquiry, the committee heard of different approaches taken by signatory nations, and we do not agree that there was a demonstrated benefit to developing a formal structural and regulatory national action plan. As noted in the dissenting report, the principles contained in UNDRIP are already found across many initiatives and programs, and there are existing mechanisms that allow for the UN to assess, monitor, promote and report on Australia's implementation of UNDRIP principles. As the coalition members do not support the development of a national action plan, we do not, therefore, agree with the committee's recommendations 2 and 3.

Recommendation 4 of the main report calls on the government to pursue truth and treaty as outlined in the Uluru statement. Given the Voice referendum result, the coalition members' view is that this recommendation would not be supported by the Australian public. It is worth noting that the Albanese government appear to be reluctant to outline their ongoing commitment to the truth and treaty elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The committee also recommended amending the definition of 'human rights' in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to include the UNDRIP so that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights must formally consider it when scrutinising legislation. The current definition is already inclusive of seven other international conventions. These rights and freedoms are, of course, relevant to all Australians. We also heard that the PJCHR already have the capacity to determine when the UNDRIP is relevant, and it is considered accordingly. The coalition members believe the status quo is acceptable.

While coalition members were unable to agree to the set of recommendations contained in the main report, I look forward to working with committee members across the parliament as we move on to other matters. I know I speak for my coalition colleagues when I say that we are committed to working in good faith to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.

I would like to close by paying tribute to a fellow Western Australian, the chair, Senator Patrick Dodson. I would like to say thanks to Pat for his service to our state of Western Australia, to Australia more broadly and to the Indigenous community. I have no doubt that our paths will cross in his beloved Kimberley. Thank you. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

PRICE (—) (): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Northern Australia workforce development: first report.

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

by leave—It has been a great privilege to chair this committee and to work with many of my colleagues to produce this report. We are all passionate and strong advocates for northern Australia. Not only is this region my home, but it is one that I believe has tremendous potential. On top of what the region could be, we also know how important it is for Australia's strategic outlook, for our national security and for our relationship with the rest of the world.

Northern Australia, though a region of much potential, faces a number of challenges both economically and socially. Some of these challenges relate to geography, harsh climates and vast stretches of land. Other challenges, which we know well in the Territory, relate to the low socioeconomic status of many of our bush communities. These communities are often spread over large, dispersed areas, making it difficult to build economies of scale. But poverty also drives social issues and community safety concerns, the product of which we see right across northern Australian communities. This is where government policy and support, in partnership with industry and the private sector, is so crucial.

I want to begin by thanking all of the people, organisations and community members who contributed to this inquiry into workforce development by the northern Australia committee. I particularly want to thank the communities who welcomed us for visits and remote hearings. I have lived in remote communities. The daily task of keeping things moving is demanding and relentless. The time that people took to present their views and insights to the committee was not lost on us, and we will make sure these insights go on to influence the actions of our government.

The issue of workforce development is a thorny one. There is no root cause and no simple fix. Rather, what this committee found was a set of intractable issues such as liveability, insufficient or ineffective skills development programs, widespread disempowerment, cycles of welfare dependency and, most prominently, a lack of suitable housing.

In response to this evidence, the committee has put forward a number of recommendations for the Australian government to consider. Recommendation 1 focused on financial assistance grants and their distribution to local governments. Remote councils in the Northern Territory often have a rate base of less than 10 per cent. This means they come to rely heavily on the financial assistance grants as well as the provision of services on behalf of the federal and Territory governments. This system and the distribution of resources to remote and regional councils need to be reviewed and improved. Recommendation 2 focused on tax incentives and the effect of encouraging people to live and stay in the north. Recommendation 3 focused on the type and quantity of housing produced. The scale of need for housing for communities in northern Australia is huge, and we need to explore appropriate ways to meet this need. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 all speak to ensuring a sustainable long-term pipeline of infrastructure in northern Australia. Such a pipeline of work requires all levels of government to work in a coordinated and streamlined fashion. Building a long-term, well-equipped and well-trained workforce needs to be part of this work.

I want to thank all of my colleagues on my side of parliament, as well as those on the opposition but also those from the Greens. The level of professionalism, the genuine commitment to bettering communities and the desire to listen are something I have appreciated from all members and much value. I also want to, as always, thank the wonderful staff, the secretariat, who do so much to facilitate the work of this parliament. I commend the report to the House. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 13 of 2023.

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

by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 13th scrutiny report of 2023. In this report the committee has considered 59 new legislative instruments and 16 new bills, commenting on four bills and concluding its consideration of one instrument.

In particular, in this report the committee is seeking further information about the two recently introduced migration amendment (bridging visa conditions) bills. The committee notes these bills respond to the High Court decision requiring the release into the community of certain noncitizens, including individuals with serious criminal histories. It is intended to complement and strengthen existing safeguards to appropriately manage these individuals to meet the objective of community safety. However, imposing mandatory visa conditions, noncompliance with which is a criminal offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment, limits multiple human rights, including the rights to privacy, liberty, work and a fair trial and the rights to freedom of movement, expression and association. There are also a number of other mandatory conditions that do not appear to engage the offence provisions in the bill, and depending on the consequences of noncompliance this may engage and limit a number of human rights. Further questions also arise regarding the proposal to give authorised officers wide-ranging powers relating to monitoring devices and the collection, use and disclosure of information.

The committee is therefore seeking further information from the Minister for Home Affairs to assess the human rights compatibility of these bills.

The committee has also concluded its consideration of the Migration Amendment (Resolution of Status Visa) Regulations 2023. These regulations require that an application for a permanent resolution of status visa must be refused where the person does not satisfy identity requirements. This applies to people who claimed asylum in Australia after travelling by boat without a valid visa before July 2013 and who are currently on a temporary protection visa. The committee notes that this measure may limit multiple human rights in practice and, based on the information provided by the minister, considers that it is not clear that this measure is directed towards a legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law. The committee has made a number of recommendations that may assist with the proportionality of this measure, and draws its human rights concerns to the attention of the minister and the parliament. I encourage all members to consider the report closely. I thank the committee secretariat for all of their work throughout 2023. They have done an incredibly big task making the committee happen. I thank the committee members, and I commend the report to the House.

I rise to advise members on the order of proceedings as they will now occur. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is still being debated in the Federation Chamber. My intention is not to bring that back to here until around 7 pm. In the interim, in a moment I will call on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, and once that is concluded we will bring back the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023. In respect of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, I move the contingency motion on the Notice Paper:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for Members speaking being five minutes; and

(2) the second reading debate continuing for no longer than one hour, after which the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Given that some people are going to be here quite late tonight, I think people know why I'm doing it. There will be different views, but I'll leave it at that.

In the interest of facilitating this matter, as the opposition has agreed with the government that we will, I won't speak for long, although I do indicate that the opposition will be calling a division on this motion because it is very bad practice to be crunching down debate in this way. That has been our consistent position; we've been maintaining that. I also move:

That all words in paragraph (1) after "immediately" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"with the time limit for the Member for Wannon being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes".

The merits of that motion speak for themselves, given the excellence of the member for Wannon, so I won't speak to it further.

This is outrageous! We are dealing with one of the most fundamental questions, which is whether someone remains a citizen of this country, and we've got a bill that was introduced without notice, with less than a day to look at it, and now we're being asked to debate it and vote on it in an hour. This isn't even legislation that's responding to a decision that happened yesterday; this has been in the works for some time, and it's on a critical issue. It's on one of the most fundamental issues in a democracy that respects the rule of law, namely, whether someone who's a citizen of this country loses that citizenship. We are being told we have to rush it through parliament and we don't even have the usual time to debate it—to have a committee scrutinise it, to have a Senate committee look at it and for us to get the advice from it, to be able to go and talk to lawyers about what the implications are of this, to understand whether there are going to be unintended consequences of doing it and to work out how it impacts on children. And we are dealing with some of the most tricky of circumstances, about people who are alleged to have done things and what you do with them.

These are questions that rightly should occupy this House. How do we deal with this? How do we balance the basic principles of citizenship and keeping the community safe, before you do one of the most fundamental things, which is take away someone's citizenship? And what do we get? Not a sober presentation of a bill through the usual processes, with the time to debate it. No. We get a bill introduced without notice, less than a day to look at it and an hour to debate it. This is outrageous, and it should send shivers down the spine of everyone in this country who is concerned about the rule of law. It's one of the most fundamental issues, the bedrock of democracy in this country, and we get an hour to debate it—and, as a result, someone can lose their citizenship!

Something as critical as this deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction and rushed process. There's absolutely no reason that has been given from the government about why that process has been circumvented. We had the minister stand up and say there could only be an hour for debate, and there was no justification given. Why? Why does this debate have to be truncated to an hour? Why couldn't this bill have been introduced before and put through the normal processes given how significant it is, given how much lead time there has been and given how long people in the department have had to consider the implications of this?

I said, a week or so ago, you have always got to worry and watch out when it comes to the end of the year, because that is the time that governments, often with the opposition's support, will collude together and ram through stuff in the hope that no-one is watching. What I didn't think was that we'd be in a situation where a Labor government will come along and say, 'Here's a law that could have an implication to strip someone's citizenship, and we're going to give you an hour to debate it because we're going to do a deal with the coalition and ram something through.'

All of us here in this place are entitled to proper, sober consideration of such a fundamentally important bill, and it looks like we're not going to get it. It looks like we're going to have something rushed through. If the government can do this on something so fundamental as a person's right to citizenship, on a question about how to interpret High Court legislation and on the relationship between the High Court and the parliament, then I am very worried about what else is in store.

I accept that these are real issues that need to be grappled with, and I accept that when the High Court hands down a decision that it is incumbent on the government to consider how to respond to that decision and if necessary bring legislation to parliament. That's the way these things work. But we are dealing here with legislation that has such profound impacts that we are entitled to consider it and we are entitled to time to consider it. There may well be worthwhile moves in what the government is doing, but we just don't know because people who have the right to consider this legislation and advise on it are just not been given that opportunity.

One of the things that we saw at the last election was that the government's vote went backwards, and we now have a situation in this country where less than a third of the people vote for the government, a bit more than a third vote for the opposition and about a third vote for someone else. Part of the reason for that is that people are fed up with this country being run like a joke and members of the public being treated like mushrooms and being told: 'Here's a piece of legislation. You've got less than a day to look at it. But just trust us; it's going to be fine. Oh, by the way, it might take away someone's citizenship, but don't worry about it. We've done it in a rush. We're not going to give you time to debate it. But, no, it could never have any unintended consequences. It could never flow on.'

We've had a rushed piece of legislation one week. At the same time, that then has had to be tidied up with another rushed piece of legislation a couple of days later. In the short time that we've been here in this final sitting in the lead-up to Christmas, we have already seen errors being brought in that have to be tidied up again, so why should we have any confidence that what is being put before us doesn't also contain the same errors? We just haven't been given the time to look at it.

I really urge the government to rethink this. Rethink this approach that is treating the public and the parliament and the third of the country that wants scrutiny and integrity in politics with such contempt. They don't even have time to go and seek advice and consider one of the most fundamental things that people in this parliament will be asked to adjudicate on. I ask the government, please, to reconsider rushing this through. Reconsider this process that says that members of this parliament get an hour to debate one of the most fundamental issues that many of them might ever debate. I'll repeat the point: if you can do this in such a rush with something like this, it should a shiver down the spine of anyone in this country, because who knows what else is coming down the line.

It's been a long day and a long year, and I wouldn't be standing to raise these points if I didn't think they were important. I think there's some irony in the fact that the Leader of the House has just announced an extended debate, understandably on hate speech legislation, this evening, yet we're being given one hour to debate a really important piece of legislation, and it's a worthwhile conversation to have.

This legislation relates to two court cases in regard to Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs, but it's not retrospective. The fact that Benbrika's situation will change around Christmas time will not even be affected by this bill, so I fail to understand the level of urgency and I worry that we're not going to have a full and frank conversation about the potential unintended consequences of this legislation.

The Leader of the Australian Greens has made the point that it's very difficult to get the kind of advice required to vote on this in the time frame given. We're also not allowed to even attempt to amend the bill, so in many cases anything we say about it is moot. But I have spoken to lawyers in the last hour and a half, and they've told me that there are potential unintended consequences and that this legislation, as written, could be subject to a constitutional challenge. So we'd then end up back in the High Court, which is exactly the point of the bill. This is becoming a bad habit of this government, particularly on these sensitive matters of human rights. This is not what we should be doing.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Confusion, chaos, being rushed, cutting debate time, not keeping Australians safe—this is what this government is all about. It's one disaster after another disaster. It's two ministers who do not have a clue about how to keep Australians safe. It is just one farcical situation after another. Let's look at the process as to how we got to where we are now. On Monday morning the government comes to the opposition and says, 'We would like a meeting at eight o'clock in the morning to look at this bill.' We say that we need proper briefings—we want to understand the bill; we want to know it. The government goes away. We hear nothing, and then, all of a sudden, today at 12.45 this bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, is received electronically, just after the Leader of the Opposition meets with the Prime Minister to try and make sure that this bill will not have holes in it, that this bill will do the job that we want it to do. What does the government do? It says: 'No. It is our way or no other way.' We know what happened last time they did that: it was an unmitigated disaster. Do you think that they would learn? No. They don't know how to learn, and this is the problem for the Australian people, and this is why the Australian people are so concerned. The government is not looking after their safety. We saw it today in question time. Do you think their focus was on where that one detainee is—somewhere out there in the ether; he could be wandering through the parliament, for all we know—and trying to find that person? No, it was not. It was about trying to score cheap political points.

Well, we want to do our best to make sure this bill does the job the Australian people deserve it to do. In the first instance, the government should refer this bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, because then it could be properly scrutinised to make sure it does its job. But the government doesn't want it to do that. Now, why would we want it to do that? For instance, on Monday morning, when we had about 20 minutes to discuss it, we gave the government some insights into what it needs to do with this bill, and it seems they've taken some of that onboard—a little bit of it onboard; they haven't taken it all onboard.

So let's have a look at what a proper parliamentary inquiry could do. The bill specifically carves out section 105A. 18B of the Criminal Code from the definition of 'serious offence'. And what does that provision say? The provision makes it an offence for a person who is subject to a supervision order that requires them to wear a monitoring device to interfere with that device. So, if a hard-core criminal such as a convicted terrorist is required by the court to wear a monitoring device and they destroy or damage it so that they can't be tracked, the government does not consider that to be serious. If you are compelled to wear an ankle bracelet and then you interfere with it, the government does not consider that a serious offence. This is from, as I've said, the same government who has let a detainee out into the community without, it seems, any sort of monitoring, without any sort of device.

In addition, we consider that there are other clear gaps that should go to the Intelligence and Security Committee to be looked at: offences against subdivision C of division 80 of the Criminal Code, including urging the overthrow of the government by force or violence, urging of violence against groups and urging or advocating of terrorism; offences that operate in circumstances where the person intends for the violence or terrorism to actually occur; offences against division 83 of the Criminal Code, including military-style training with a foreign government; offences against division 270 of the Criminal Code, slavery and slavery-like offences; offences against division 272 of the Criminal Code, child sex offences; offences against division 274, torture; and offences against part 9.4 of the Criminal Code, dealing with dangerous weapons.

Now, let's put this in context. This bill is saying that if you're a person who goes overseas to murder other Australians that is not enough to cancel your citizenship. That is why we think this bill should go for proper scrutiny. If you're a person who engages in torture or who goes overseas to rape children, that is not enough to allow the minister to go to the court and say, 'Actually, we don't think this person should be an Australian.' I just want to repeat that, because these are all the reasons why this bill needs scrutiny. If you are a person who engages in torture or who goes overseas to rape children, that is not enough to allow the minister to go to the court and say, 'Actually, we don't think this person should be an Australian.' I'll repeat it again, because I was making the point to my colleagues. What this bill is also saying is that, if you're a person who goes overseas to murder other Australians, that is not enough to cancel your citizenship. That is why we think a bill like this needs proper scrutiny.

The minister is here. I say to the minister that there used to be a way things were done in this place when we were dealing with serious laws, and that was that these laws would go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. They would be worked out and discussed, and legal advice would be discussed. You wouldn't just say to the opposition on a Monday morning, 'Here's a bill; take it or leave it,' especially when the experience that you've had when you've been in government and you've been the minister is one where you've botched everything that you've been looking at. It's not the way to do things properly. You've got to remember that we are dealing with keeping Australians safe. That is the fundamental responsibility of any government. Yet here we are with an hour to debate this bill, without proper consultation. Instead of the government coming to the opposition and saying, 'We want to do this; we want to do it properly; we want to get it right,' they do this. It is not the right way to keep Australians safe.

I'll say this to the government: it's incredibly important that you get the details right on these types of bills, as the examples that I've just shown indicate. And the Prime Minister needs to know that, because the Prime Minister isn't a details person. The Leader of the Opposition is someone who knows how to keep Australians safe. He has experience in keeping Australians safe. He has been through these processes and knows what you need to do to keep Australians safe. He has a track record par excellence of keeping Australians safe. You don't want to draw on that experience, yet we've already demonstrated it to you. When you did draw on that experience, you got a much better bill, which happened last time we were in this place. So I say to the Prime Minister: if your ministers are hapless and hopeless, you've got to take some responsibility yourself, and you've got to get across the detail. You've got to understand that your ministers aren't doing the right thing. They're not making sure that bills are being looked at properly and that we're getting the best legislation we need through this parliament.

I will conclude there, and I move:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House directs that the matters addressed in this bill be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and recommendation on any further amendments which may be required concerning these matters, in view of the chaotic process and remarkable haste which have characterised this Government's approach to the development of this bill and the manner in which it has been brought forward".

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate interrupted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent divisions occurring after 6.30 pm today in relation to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023.

Very quickly, for the information of members, we have time to get through the second reading and the third reading votes, but we've now had a second reading amendment, and I think we're going to get another. To make sure that we have time for those divisions to be held as well, the motion is to suspend the 6.30 rule. Once this bill is finished, there'll be no further divisions or quorums for the rest of the day.

I indicate that the opposition will be supporting that motion.

Question agreed to.

This is one of the most serious debates that this parliament could enter into, but we're entering into this debate in one of the most farcical circumstances I can recall in my more than two decades in this parliament. This is a very serious issue for the government to contemplate. To put it into context, the government has had since June to compose legislation, to seek legal advice from the Solicitor-General and to resolve these matters which have arisen because of the judgement within the High Court. None of that has taken place.

We went in for briefings earlier this week, on Monday, to be told by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs that this bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, and the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 were to be dealt with on Monday. They wanted to deal with the two bills, to rush them through, in a haphazard way, which is a similar outcome to what happened in the last sitting week—no correspondence entered into, no legal advice being made available to the opposition so that we can contemplate our position, just this jackboot operation to drive it through the chamber here.

What we're seeing at the moment is an opportunity for the government to move this bill as quickly as possible into the upper house, because that would mean that there would be no consideration in detail in the lower house. It would mean that the reasonable amendments that we have to move wouldn't be individually voted on by the members of the government, because they don't want to be in a position where their constituents hear what Labor is really concocting here, and that is a vote against the very reasonable suggestions that we've made by way of amendments—which have been outlined by the shadow minister for immigration—to make Australia safer. That's what they're trying to circumvent here, and that's why the motion has just been moved by the Leader of the House—because he wants to get it out of this chamber and out of the public eye as quickly as humanly possible.

This government has presided over an absolute train wreck of a policy which is putting Australian citizens at risk. We know, in relation to the High Court case, in relation to the migration matter, that the minister has conceded that the particular case was settled before, and the facts agreed to, on the minister's submission—which is why the minister was asked about it in question time today—which conceded a point which gave rise to the High Court decision that has got us into this mess. When a minister for immigration is considering a matter and hasn't made a final determination in relation to an individual, that doesn't mean that that person is facing indefinite detention. But that is essentially what the minister for immigration and the Minister for Home Affairs, through their collective incompetence, have surrendered in the High Court, which has allowed over 140 people to be released into the community.

We know that at least one of them has been released. We don't know whether this is the rapist, the paedophile or somebody who has been involved in serious criminal conduct otherwise. We don't know where this person is. We don't know whether there are others in the community who have been shown an open front door, without the ankle bracelet, without the requisite reporting conditions, because the government has this cone of silence, trying to keep the information from the Australian public.

I think it's unconscionable for the Prime Minister to continue this farce. These two ministers are out of their depth. They don't have a clue as to what is going on. What we found out on Monday in the briefing in relation to the citizenship bill was that this bill doesn't even capture Benbrika and three other high-risk terrorists who have been convicted in our country. These people are serious offenders, and it's beyond the capacity of this government or this minister to deal with them and to provide assurances of safety to the Australian people.

We have spent a lot of money, time and effort over the course of the last decade or so, given the threat from ISIL, ISIS and returning overseas foreign fighters, and people being indoctrinated over their computer screens, making sure we keep Australians safe. This Prime Minister is putting all of that at risk. And the saddest part, as the shadow minister for immigration pointed out before, is he's not across the detail. He, too, frankly and sadly, doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. So we get this patchwork arrangement. It is unacceptable, and it's why the coalition will continue to push for harder laws so that we can keep Australians safe and that we can save the ministers from their own incompetency.

This is no way to pass laws. This is no way to run a country, and it's happening because Labor is dancing to the Liberals' tune. The Leader of the Opposition, who's got a history of punching down and attacking migrants, whips up a fear campaign, and, instead of responding soberly, Labor is panicked and rushes legislation into this parliament that deals with some of the most fundamental issues we can deal with around citizenship and the relationship between the High Court and the parliament. It is one of the most fundamental issues that you can deal with, and what happens? We see opposition—

I ask the member for Melbourne to take his seat for a moment, please. It looks like the opposition leader is seeking the call.

Those words used by the member for Melbourne offend against standing orders 89 and 90, and I would ask that you ask him to withdraw those offensive words.

Member for Melbourne, it would assist the House if you withdrew the comments.

To assist you, Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying people in Melbourne were scared to go out because of African gangs. What rubbish, what hatred, what division was fuelled by those kinds of comments—and he repeats them time and time again.

Last week I said to Labor, 'Don't engage in a race to the bottom with the Leader of the Opposition, because there's nowhere that he won't go.' And we see that on display now. He says: 'You're not acting quick enough. You're not doing anything. You need to bring legislation before parliament.' So Labor dances to his tune and rushes legislation before parliament, and then he says: 'No, you're rushing it. Slow down. You're rushing it.' You cannot appease the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to this, so they shouldn't even try. Instead, when we are dealing with some of the most fundamental issues—including dealing with whether people have their citizenship, how you keep the community safe, how you respond to issues raised by the High Court, how you interpret the Constitution—that is the time for sober, considered judgement, not for dancing to the Leader of the Opposition's tune.    We have seen it here: do not just give in to him because he will come back and ask for more every time. When you rush something because he says you're going too slow, he'll accuse you of going too fast. When you bring in legislation that you say is tough, he says you're not going tough enough. There is nothing that he won't ask you to do. I plead with the government: stop letting the Leader of the Opposition occupy the de facto role of running the country. That is what is happening at the moment.

There are serious issues that arise out of the High Court decision that there have been months to respond to. We have known what the parliamentary timetable is for quite some time. It was well within the government's ability to bring legislation forward, to allow it to go through the usual committee processes and to give everyone in this place the time to consider it, go and seek advice and then come back and decide whether to support it or oppose it. That should happen with any legislation, but it especially should happen with legislation that can have the effect of taking away someone's citizenship. We don't know what the unintended consequences are in this legislation. We do know, because we've seen it happen here over the last seven days, that when the government rushes legislation they then have to rush in more legislation to fix it. That is not a way to pass laws in this country, and who knows what problems there are with this legislation? You would think that, when it comes to something so fundamental, you would want to get the best advice about whether there are unintended consequences. When it comes to legislation that potentially affects what you do with children who might have dual citizenship and then might find themselves potentially stripped of it or their parents stripped of it, you'd want to have a chance to have a reasoned and sober debate about that. But we're being denied it.

Five minutes! Five minutes for a piece of legislation that came in at lunchtime that deals with one of the most fundamental issues that you have as a citizen, namely your right to citizenship—that is no way to legislate. But it's what happens when Labor gives in to the fearmongering of the opposition.

I tell you what? You think you're doing it now and ripping the bandaid off, but it's going to happen again and it's going to happen again and it's going to happen again. We're going to be back here and back here and back here. So I plead with the government to reconsider, to give us all in this place time enough to consider the legislation and not ram this through.

The Australian people are seeing in real-time what a chaotic, disorganised and incompetent government we have. The contrast could not be more stark between the matters that were spoken about just a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition—when he spoke about the methodical and systematic way in which, under the previous coalition government, these matters that are so critical when it comes to keeping Australian citizens safe were dealt with by the previous government and, as a consequence of that methodical systematic approach, the necessary measures were taken to keep Australian citizens safe, to manage in an appropriate way our migration processes and to do the things that Australians expect that a competent and capable government will do—and what we've seen from the present government, which has been mystifyingly incompetent.

The decision of the High Court to which the bill before the House today responds, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, was made on 8 June. That is six months ago, give or take, and only now is the government bringing forward legislation. It was shared with the opposition for the first time on Monday of this week, and all of a sudden they are in a desperate rush to get it done. They've had months in which they've sat on their hands, and now there is a desperate rush to get this done. One of the consequences of the desperate rush, with the evidence suggesting that the drafting of the bill wasn't completed until, as I understand it, sometime over the weekend, is that this bill does not actually deal with the circumstances of Mr Benbrika, the person after whom the High Court judgement was made—one of the parties. It does not deal with historical cases like those of Mr Benbrika and will only deal with future terrorism cases. That is but one of many serious problems the opposition has identified with this bill in the brief time that we have had to consider it, including the brief time we've had to consider the revised version of it that was provided to the opposition this morning.

I think another very obvious question that Australians might have is: if the government had not been caught flat-footed in relation to another High Court case, leaving it to release into the community a number which now stands at well over 100—indeed, 141—hardened criminals, if the government had not been caught flat-footed without a contingency plan and had not been so embarrassed by being seen by the Australian people to have comprehensively mismanaged these issues, I think there's a very real question as to whether they would have bothered to bring forward the bill that is before the House today, because it's impossible to avoid the conclusion based on the facts and on what we've seen of the conduct of these two hapless and hopeless ministers, the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration, that they had very little idea of what they would do. Based on the facts and on what we've seen of the conduct of these two hapless and hopeless ministers—the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration—it's very hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that they had very little idea of what they would do. They have been sitting there in a reactive mode rather than working proactively to identify the steps they need to take to identify perfectly predictable potential scenarios, such as the High Court coming down with particular decisions. Instead of preparing in a proactive fashion, they've sat there in a flat-footed fashion and they've been caught out, and the Australian people have seen just how incompetent this government is—just how reactive this government is. What is very troubling is the scale of the threat to public safety as a consequence of what we have seen happen, with some 141, to date, hardened criminals released into the community. The contrast between the calm, sober, methodical management of these issues when the current Leader of the Opposition had ministerial responsibility and when other ministers had responsibility under the previous coalition government and the chaos that we are seeing now is very striking. It should trouble, I think, every Australian.

I move:

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

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading, it is of the opinion that the bill should be amended to:

(1) apply only to people 18 years and older, as 14 year olds are children and any cessation of citizenship would not be in the best interests of the child; and

(2) exclude people born in Australia, who have a natural born right to citizenship".

I must note that I had planned to move these amendments during Consideration in Detail, but the government has curtailed debate, and, as such, the opportunity to move the detailed amendments has been lost. It should concern all of us that a bill of this nature is not being treated with due process nor debated to the extent it deserves. Let's be clear: this is a bill that, if passed, could see children as young as 14 stripped of their Australian citizenship. The changes proposed in this legislation could have immense impacts on people's lives, and we have a responsibility to ensure we treat the decisions made in this place with the utmost integrity and the utmost scrutiny, which I believe are lacking in this process.

The first amendment that I will move addresses the fact that, as it currently stands, under this bill, a child—not an adult; a child—from the age of 14 can have their citizenship stripped. That's not okay. While the government has told us there is evidence of children under the age of 16 committing these serious crimes, which the bill seeks to address, I argue that we have a court system to deal with such offences and, at the same time, we have a human rights obligation to uphold. As a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Australia recognises the right of every child alleged as, accused of or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of a child's sense of dignity and worth and that, in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public, private or social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration. Stripping a child's Australian citizenship from them is not in the best interests of the child, and using cessation of citizenship as a tool for the punishment of children is deeply concerning.

But let's put this in context. Many 14-year-olds are just beginning high school. They're heading down a path towards adulthood. As a mother of three children, I know exactly how difficult this time can be for a young person. How, with any moral dignity, can we legislate that a 14-year-old may have their Australian citizenship taken away? They are in the midst of a pivotal life stage, one that requires support and direction, not capital punishment and certainly not loss of identity. At 14, you can't drink, you can't smoke, you can't drive, and you can't have sex. Yet, under this legislation, your citizenship will be able to be stripped from you. If our assumption is that someone at the age of 14 is beyond redemption, we have truly deteriorated as a society. For these reasons, I'm calling for this age to be lifted to 18 years old in this legislation.

Secondly, I propose to amend this legislation to ensure that a dual citizen that has been born in Australia cannot have their citizenship revoked under this bill. Imagine: a dual citizen, Australian-born, with a second citizenship because of who their parents are. They have no connection to the second country and may never have even visited it. Australia is all they know; it is who they are. They've been raised here, and they are a product of our society. It is unacceptable that this person could be stripped of their Australian citizenship and sent to a foreign place under this legislation.

Again, we have a court system to deal with offenders like this. Let's let the courts deal with them. What evidence is there that repudiation laws do anything to make the country safer? This is a shocking example of how this government is prepared to completely throw proper parliamentary processes out the window and to rush important and potentially life-altering legislation through the House. It is an overreach, and every Australian should be sincerely concerned that this legislation could come to be. There is no place in our modern democracy for a bill like this, nor for this poor process.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I move:

That the following words be added after paragraph (2):

"(3) remove Section 36C(5)(a), given its implications for the effective operation of the law if this section stands part of the bill".

My first issue with the situation that we find ourselves in this afternoon is the timing. This bill is the result of a couple of court cases, Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 19 and Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 33. As has already been said in this chamber, this legislation is not retrospective, so, although the special detention which Benbrika finds himself in will expire at Christmas, it will not affect him. Therefore I fail to understand why we are forcing this through the House this afternoon, given that the urgency doesn't seem to exist.

There are incredibly sensitive issues at play here that require detailed debate. There are potential deep unintended consequences of this legislation. Section 4(c) of the bill refers to a conviction that is so serious and significant that it demonstrates that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia. Constitutional and other lawyers that I've spoken to this afternoon agree that as yet there is no definition in any legislation of what 'allegiance' means. The government seems to have tried to resolve that with the section which I'm trying to amend out of the bill, section 36C(5)(a):

whether the conduct to which the conviction or convictions relate demonstrates a repudiation of the values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties that underpin Australian society;

The fundamental issue with that, again according to constitutional lawyers, is that there is no definition of any of those things. Therefore we're in a situation where the government is trying to get through its second piece of legislation to resolve a High Court decision which is likely to provoke further action in the High Court to challenge that particular clause.

I understand that the minister's office has put in section 36C(5)(a) in order to avoid constraining the court on the definition of 'allegiance'. My concern is that, in seeking to avoid constraining the court, the government's also not going to be constraining any appellant who might seek to challenge this in the court. As a former journalist, I can see that it would be a fantastic story to have a High Court case trying to define Australian values and just exactly what democratic beliefs, rights and liberties that underpin Australian society are. But I think it's fair to say that the types of people who might seek to take that action would have very different definitions of those things from any of us in this chamber. It opens an enormous can of worms.

This afternoon I spoke to Elisa Arcioni, who's an associate professor at the University of Sydney Law School. She says: 'Courts don't like working with fuzzy ideas that are highly political. In relation to your specific query regarding values et cetera, no, these do not appear written in the Constitution or even in any legislation. It seems to be a reference to the general language contained in the preamble of the Citizenship Act. It's not clear exactly what's included. That would be a matter of statutory interpretation by a court. That raises potential constitutional and political issues. Yes, there may be litigation which would arise if the provisions were enacted and then applied to an individual, who could challenge the validity of the legislation as well as its application to them.'

I could say all sorts of other things about the ethics behind this legislation, but, in effect, that would bring us back to the beginning, having wasted potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in the process. There's a deeper question, also raised by the associate professor that I spoke to today, about citizenship per se and whether it's okay to remove it and also whether, in passing this bill in a rush, we'll be creating two classes of citizens in this country.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

The member for Goldstein asked a very important question and outlined exactly how this bill that we're talking about will not improve national security or the safety of Australians. There's no case before the High Court. It's not retrospective. It's a really important question: why are we rushing it? And the answer is really simple.

Politics.

The answer is politics. The member for Nicholls is right. The answer is politics. Let's be very clear for the Australian people. This bill that we are debating that is being rushed through has no connection to the NZYQ case—no connection at all. It is a completely separate bill. But this government is doing the one thing they always focus on: the politics. They are trying to conflate two separate issues to cover for the incompetence of the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration. They have rushed this bill through this House—brought it in on Monday and are trying to get it through today. But when did this case come before the High Court? That was in June of 2022. So why the rush? It is pure politics. We saw it in question time, with the minister playing politics on this important issue.

Federal governments have two primary responsibilities: to keep us safe and to make sure we have a strong economy that can deliver for all Australians. For the last 18 months we have seen this government continue to make wrong decision after wrong decision, hurting all Australians, through this cost-of-living crisis, as they've been distracted. We now see, in the last four weeks, the incompetence of this government come through again as they are flat-footed, making wrong decision after wrong decision, contradicting themselves in press conferences and interviews, changing their positions, and bringing a bill in on Monday that doesn't need to be rushed through, with 21 amendments to that bill already, because they're playing politics and they're letting the Australian people down. There has to be a better way.

Two weeks ago, when the bill came through, we were lucky that the Leader of the Opposition, with all his experience, was essentially able to write the legislation to make sure Australians are safe. But the government didn't like that expertise, to make sure we could at least make a bad bill a little bit better. So everything that's happening now is, as the Leader of the Opposition said previously, to make sure none of the opposition's amendments can be debated, voted on or discussed. But this bill is a bad bill. If people have engaged in torture or have gone overseas to rape children, that's not enough to be captured within this bill. If a person goes to train with a foreign military or they engage in arms trafficking across borders or they urge violence against Australians—some of the clearest possible repudiations of your allegiance to Australia—you don't have to worry: this bill does not capture those people.

So, we're rushing through a bill, for pure politics, that is not even going to be fit for purpose. It is another example of two ministers who are out of their depth. It's an example of a Prime Minister who is not across the detail. Whether it's the economy or whether it's border protection and national security, this Prime Minister isn't across the detail. He doesn't have the ability to step in and save these ministers from their incompetence. The worst part about this is that it is the Australian people who will suffer.

Regarding one of the people who have been released, the government doesn't even know where they are. People could be in danger right now. This government doesn't know where that person is. They've let 141 people out. They're not doing enough to keep the Australian people safe. All they do is revert back to type. They revert back to politics. They think that a few slogans, a little bit of spin, and conflating two separate issues into one will make a difference. Well, it's not going to keep the Australian people safe, and it shows the incompetence of this government.

I rise to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. I have to say I am appalled by what I have heard from the government and from the coalition in this place. What does it mean to you to be Australian citizens, because you are trampling it today? Let's be really clear about what's happened. We are having a knee-jerk reaction, a fear campaign, to try and get some hysteria going. It's a fear campaign that is creating a knee-jerk reaction which we from the crossbench are trying to manage in the sense of putting some reasonableness back into this and making sure the more horrendous parts of this legislation are deleted. But the government, to its shame, is trampling procedure in this place to not even allow proper third reading and consideration-in-detail amendments. After having spent four years in this place and having heard the government when in opposition bemoan the coalition's regular practice of trampling procedure, it's quite impressive to see it do it in turn.

Let's be really clear about what this legislation does. I will be voting against this. It is putting measures in place to remove the citizenship of persons, even persons that were born in Australia, and it engages with the very intrinsic legal principles on which our democracy was founded. Taking away citizenship cannot, and should not, be done lightly. Dual citizens should not find themselves with conditional citizenship, especially if they were born in Australia and, in particular, if they are still children. It may be that this bill is needed for some purpose as a practical solution following the decision handed down by the High Court, but we simply have not had the opportunity to find that out. This bill must be referred to the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for proper scrutiny.

But let's be really clear. We now have clear issues of integrity on what Australian citizenship means and its importance as a tool to strengthen democracy by fostering social cohesion. What we now have is a situation where the government is prepared, without proper process, to strip people of citizenship. This law will give effect to a ministerial application to remove citizenship once an individual is convicted of a serious terrorism related offence or other crimes. This is not about the substance of those crimes. They are heinous; there is no doubt about it. But we are lawful liberal democracy society. We have a penal system. We have laws. We have courts that apply procedures. We have sentencing. That should not be usurped with this other process of stripping citizenship.

What's really important as well is allowing citizenship to only be removed where an individual has been convicted of one or more serious offences and where a person's conduct is so serious that it demonstrates a person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia. With respect, a person born in Australia does not pass a character test to become an Australian citizen. They are an Australian citizen. So exactly what are they repudiating in terms of that allegiance?

What is even more shameful is this will bill apply, if the government does not accept these amendments, to 14-year-olds. As the member for North Sydney has said, we do not consider 14-year-olds to be legally capable to drink alcohol, to vote, to drive or to have sex, but we are going to consider them responsible to lose citizenship of probably the only country they really know, that they may have been born in. They may have that dual citizenship only as a result of their parents. Keep in mind, Minister, the rest of the government and everyone in this place that the vast majority of Australians—I believe the statistic is more than half of the Australian population—have dual citizenship. Where are we going to draw the line? If someone of Italian heritage or some other heritage decides to commit a crime that the government of the day decides is so heinous they should no longer be Australians, will they also lose their citizenship status? It is incredible to see the length to which this government is prepared to go because of the dog-whistling that is coming from the opposition. It is shameful, and any lawyer in this place should be horrified to be prepared to vote on this legislation. It is incredible that the minister has come into this place with this piece of legislation that tramples what it means to be an Australian.

As legislators, we should come to this decision with our eyes wide open. This bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, is allowing judges, not the executive, to repudiate citizenship in the event a dual citizen commits a serious offence. These offences most certainly are a terrible breach of trust—no doubt about that. This bill might protect the separation of powers, but we need to be absolutely clear about what we're doing here. This is the very first time Australia has legislated to give judges the power to repudiate citizenship as a form of punishment. This is an exceptional step. It's a truly historic step for how we as Australians view and treat citizenship. Citizenship is an important and positive tool to foster social cohesion. That's how we've viewed citizenship in this country. It is something frequently celebrated in our country, fundamental to our multicultural fabric. By granting judges the power to repudiate citizenship as a punishment when a dual citizen commits a criminal offence, we are shifting away from citizenship as a nation-building exercise. We need to be clear about that. With this bill, citizenship is being used as a form of exclusion, not inclusion. We're changing this fundamental compact; we absolutely are. This is a big change.

Further, it's effectively creating two classes of citizenship in this country: one for sole citizens and one for dual citizens. I've got two dual citizens working in my team right now, tonight. We've just heard that there are millions of dual citizens around Australia who right now don't know that we're talking about this; they've got no idea. Only dual citizens are at risk of having their citizenship revoked if they commit one of these serious crimes—and I do not deny that these are serious crimes—and they will have a second-class form of citizenship if this bill proceeds.

Fundamentally, I truly haven't seen the case put as to why this is so urgent that it needs to be done tonight. It may be in response to a recent High Court decision, but that in itself does not justify rushing it through parliament. Why does it have to be passed tonight? Why can't it be referred to a committee? Why can't we receive submissions from the general public, from legal experts and from security experts? Why can't we do that? That's what we do, generally, when we're passing important legislation.

The matters addressed in this bill are serious, with serious repercussions for the people of Australia and for their understanding of who they are as Australians. Like many members of the crossbench, I've been madly trying to find some expertise to advise me about this. I've been ringing university experts, as others have, and today I spoke with Professor Kim Rubenstein, who's a citizenship expert. She says that judges have recognised that the deprivation of citizenship or nationality can be a permanent rupture in the relationship between the individual and the state. Indeed, that is what the minister is intending to do: to permanently rupture that relationship. It involves the loss of fundamental rights of citizenship. I understand that, in addition to that, there are constitutional validity questions that still remain, and the member for Goldstein has pointed out one of them: proposed section 36C(5)(a). Professor Rubenstein, likewise, said this is potentially problematic.

So a decision on this legislation should not be taken lightly, and it should not be rushed. It shouldn't be introduced and passed in a single sitting week. It's just extraordinary, really, and it's reflecting a deeply concerning pattern of behaviour by the government, particularly after it rushed through multiple bills in the last sitting week. It's terrible governance to do this—the fact that we are now deliberating with an hour to make a decision on something as important as this. I'm calling on the government to stop this behaviour and ensure that we have adequate time to consider and debate such fundamentally important legislation to our nation, to our view of ourselves and to the fundamental meaning of citizenship as we as Australians have understood it.

I absolutely support the member for Goldstein's amendment, and I also support the member for North Sydney's amendment for the reasons given. We're applying this to children as well as adults. This is a big change. We should not be rushing into this, coming into this House, making a quick decision and walking away from it; we simply shouldn't be doing that.

Before I give the call to the most honourable member for Kennedy: I just remind him that the debate will expire at 6.23 pm, giving the honourable member three minutes. I'll do my best to try and prompt the honourable member.

I listened to the last speaker. Much as I greatly revere and honour her point of view, you stand back here and you say 1,200 people were murdered—there is no other word for it—in cold blood in Israel. If I was Israeli, there would be one thing that I would do immediately. And anyone on earth that thinks they're not entitled to do that doesn't read history books. If you know that you can do this and get away with it, if people in this country, Australia, can exercise their right to vehement antisemitism, I as an Australian am saying that that is un-Australian. If you want to be un-Australian, then you go back to where you came from—and I make no apologies for that.

My family had to fight with their fists to be accepted as Australians. As my brother, a lecturer in law for 30 or 40 years at a prominent university, said, Australia has never been multicultural; we have always been monocultural. If you want to come to Australia, you become an Australian. If that's unreasonable, then I don't know that you're the sort of person we should have in this country. That people could go out on the streets and terrorise, that Jewish schools have people with machine guns to protect those going to school, and you are advocating here that these people be given protection—that is what you are saying. Some of them have come here as migrants. They have had very serious charges laid against them.

In my opinion, the High Court was legislating. I think that, if anything, the government lacked an alacrity in dealing with the problem. There is a separation of powers, and in my opinion there is evidence now that we have a rogue High Court that does not understand the separation of powers. Their decision, in my opinion, was legislation. I bend the knee to nobody in this area. I advised the Queensland government on Mabo and told the Premier he was completely wrong, that we spent $54 million on the best lawyers in Australia and they were wrong—

I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution. The time for the debate has now expired. The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Wannon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members.

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

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

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

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

(In division) Order! To assist with the count, I need the chamber to listen to this. Would members take a seat. There are spare seats. Take them.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

For the benefit of members, we suspended the 6.30 pm rule only for that bill; that means the rules that ordinarily apply now apply. There will be no further divisions and no further quorums this evening. In a moment I will call on the prohibited hate symbols and other measures bill, and that will continue for the rest of the night, except that, at 7.30 pm, we will negate the adjournment and then give leave for people who were listed on the adjournment to give five-minute speeches.

I declare that the Federation Chamber order of the day No. 1, government business, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, is returned to the House for further consideration.

I rise to speak in favour of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This bill was first introduced to the House on 14 June this year, and it was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, PJCIS, soon afterwards in order for the committee to review the legislation in further detail. After receiving, I believe, 151 submissions and conducting a public hearing, the PJCIS handed down its report on this bill to the House. The committee throughout has acted as an additional layer to ensure a calibrated bipartisan approach can be maintained on sensitive legislation germane to our national security. This bill leaves Australians in no doubt that the hateful ideologies targeted both broadly and specifically by this bill and those that deserve our strongest condemnation—whether they exist in the open, out on our streets, in the dark corners of cyberspace, on Telegram channels or on other forums known as havens for extremist views—have no place in our society.

Presently, as ASIO notes, Australia's national terrorism threat level is 'possible'. Whilst this would indicate that the number of individuals and groups that have been identified as having the intention to conduct an attack within Australia is of a lessened severity than it was when the threat level was raised back in 2014, ASIO still notes that extremist groups are now more likely to be working on recruiting and radicalising new members to their cause and into their twisted ideologies. This should be something we should all see as a cause for concern and something that should be disrupted, mitigated and deterred. This is why we are here today: to hopefully play our part in the passage of this bill towards becoming law. In an era where the threats of extremism and terrorism are ever present and evolving, Australia must take a decisive stance. This bill represents our collective resolve to confront and dismantle the forces of hate and division that threaten the peace and harmony of our nation. It is a testament to our determination to uphold the principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law in the face of challenges that seek to undermine them.

At the heart of this bill is the prohibition of hate symbols, particularly those associated with the darkest chapters of human history, the symbols of Nazi ideology: the hakenkreuz, or swastika, and the Schutzstaffel double-sig rune. Emblems of oppression and terror are rightfully targeted in this legislation. By outlawing these symbols, we are sending a clear message: Australia is a nation that stands firmly against the ideologies of hate and division. We are a country that values diversity, inclusivity and mutual respect.

But this bill goes beyond the mere prohibition of symbols. It is a comprehensive approach to tackling the multifaceted nature of modern terrorism and extremism. The bill extends its reach to symbols used by terrorist organisations, recognising that these symbols are not mere icons but potent tools in the arsenal of these groups to spread their toxic ideologies and recruit followers. The penalties and offences outlined in this bill reflect the seriousness with which we approach this issue. Those who choose to display these symbols of hate and division will face the full force of the law. However, it is crucial to note that this bill is not just about the punishment. It is about education, awareness and, ultimately, prevention. By outlawing these symbols, we aim to curb their influence and the spread of extremist ideologies.

As we deliberate on this bill, let us be guided by a vision of Australia where diversity is not just tolerated but celebrated, where the lessons of history inform our present and where every individual is free from the scourge of hatred and extremism. This bill is a step towards that vision, a reaffirmation of our commitment to a society built on the foundations of respect, unity and shared values. Our nation has always been a mosaic of cultures, beliefs and backgrounds. This diversity is our strength and is something we must protect and nurture. The prohibition of hate symbols is a crucial part of this protection. It sends a strong signal that we will not allow symbols of hate and division to take root in our society. It is a proactive measure to ensure that the mistakes of our history are not repeated on our shores.

Moreover, this bill recognises the evolving nature of the threat posed by terrorism and extremism. The digital age has brought new challenges in the fight against these scourges. Extremist groups have increasingly turned to the internet to spread their hateful ideologies and recruit followers. The provisions in this bill targeting the misuse of carriage services for violent extremist material are a direct response to this challenge. By criminalising the dissemination of such material, we are taking a significant step in preventing the radicalisation of our citizens, particularly our youth.

The expansion of the offence of advocating terrorism to include instruction in and praise of terrorist acts is another critical aspects is a part of this bill. This change is a recognition of the evolving tactics of terrorist groups, who often use subtle and indirect methods to incite violence. By broadening the definition, we ensure that our laws are equipped to deal with these modern methods of radicalisation.

As we consider the provisions of this bill, it is important to remember that our response to terrorism and extremism must be as dynamic and adaptable as the threats themselves. The measures proposed in this bill are a reflection of that adaptability, ensuring that our legal framework remains effective in the face of changing tactics and technologies, and that approach is no different concerning provisions related to the listing of terrorist organisations. This is a cornerstone of our national security strategy and crucial in our ongoing battle against terrorism and extremism. Schedule 4 of the bill proposes a significant change in the way we approach the listing of terrorist organisations, removing the sunsetting requirements for these listings. We are acknowledging the persistent and evolving nature of the threat posed by terrorist groups. This change is a recognition that the fight against terrorism is not a contemporary challenge but a continuous commitment to safeguarding our nation.

The removal of the sunsetting clause does not mean an indefinite listing without oversight. Instead it ensures that these organisations remain listed as threats until there is clear and demonstrable reason to revoke their status. This approach provides continuity and stability in our counterterrorism efforts, ensuring that our responses are not hindered by procedural time lines. That part of the bill reflects a deeper understanding of the nature of terrorism. Terrorist groups do not adhere to time lines or expire in their intent or capability to cause harm. Therefore, our legal framework must be equipped to deal with this reality, ensuring that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary tools to act decisively.

It is also important to note that the process of listing and delisting terrorist organisations remains subject to rigorous assessment and parliamentary overtight. This ensures that our approach is not only robust but also transparent and accountable. It strikes a balance between maintaining a strong stance against terrorism and ensuring respect for civil liberties and the rule of law. The provisions related to the listing of terrorist organisations in this bill are a clear indication of our proactive stance in the fight against terrorism. By ensuring that these organisations are kept under constant scrutiny, we are making a strong statement about our commitment to national security.

This approach is not about creating a climate of fear; it is about being vigilant and prepared. Terrorist organisations, by their very nature, are adaptive and resilient. They evolve, change tactics and find new ways to spread their ideologies of hate and violence. Our response, therefore, must be equally dynamic and adaptable. The provisions of this bill give us to the flexibility to respond to these evolving threats effectively. By addressing the proliferation of hate symbols and expanding the scope of advocating terrorism we are not only enhancing our security measures but also reaffirming our dedication to the principles that define us as Australians.

The prohibition of hate symbols as outlined in this bill is a clear stance against the ideologies of division and hatred. These symbols which have been used to incite violence and radicalisation have no place in a society that prides itself on its multicultural and democratic values. By legislating against these symbols we are making a statement that hate and division will not be tolerated in Australia. Moreover, the bill's focus on the misuse of digital platforms for spreading extremist material is a recognition of the changing landscape of radicalisation. In an era when information is readily accessible it is vital that we have robust mechanisms to counter the spread of extremist content. This is not about censorship. It is about protecting our citizens, especially our youth, from being exposed to and influenced by material that glorifies terrorism and incites violence.

Terrorism is not a transient issue; it a persistent challenge that requires ongoing vigilance. This bill also speaks to our international commitment in the fight against terrorism. Additionally, this bill aligns with the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to increase the penalties for advocating terrorism which was originally announced back in April last year. By strengthening our domestic laws we are contributing to the global effort to combat extremism and terrorism. We are sending a clear message that Australia is resolute in its commitment to peace, security and the rule of law. This bill aligns with our international obligations and reinforces our position as a responsible member of the global community, committed to combating terrorism in all its forms.

The implications of this bill extend beyond the realm of national security. It is about the kind of Australia we want to live in and leave for future generations, an Australia where every individual, regardless of their background, can live without fear of being targeted by ideologies of hate and extremism, an Australia that stands as a beacon of democracy, freedom and tolerance in a world often marred by division and conflict. Through the passage of this bill through the parliament we are not only strengthening our legal framework against terrorism and extremism; we are also reinforcing our commitment to the values of respect, unity and diversity. This legislation is a clear statement that, in Australia, there is no place for hate and division and that we will always stand united against those who seek to undermine our way of life.

This bill also serves as a reminder of our responsibilities as legislators and citizens. It reminds us that the fight against terrorism and extremism requires not just strong laws but also a strong and cohesive society. I also wish to underscore the significance of this legislation in our enduring quest to forge a safe and secure Australia for all its people. This bill is a cornerstone in our comprehensive strategy to combat the insidious spread of terrorism and extremism. It represents a proactive and forward-thinking approach, acknowledging that the battle against these threats is not static but dynamic and ever evolving. The measures which we are discussing today are not just reactive; they are designed to anticipate and mitigate future risks, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our citizens.

The prohibition of hate symbols, a key feature of this bill, is a powerful statement against the ideologies that seek to divide us. These symbols, steeped in histories of violence and oppression, have no place in a society that values respect, diversity and inclusivity. By legislating against these symbols we are taking a stand for the values that define us as a nation. We are declaring that Australia is a place where hate is not only discouraged but actively combatted.

This bill's emphasis on countering the misuse of digital platforms for spreading extremist material is particularly pertinent in today's interconnected world. The internet has become a battleground in the fight against radicalisation, with extremist groups exploiting these platforms to disseminate their propaganda. By targeting this misuse we are cutting off a vital channel of influence for these groups, protecting our citizens from exposure to harmful and radicalising content.

Furthermore, the bill's approach to the listing of terrorist organisations reflects a nuanced understanding of the nature of the terrorist threat. By removing the sunsetting requirement for these listings we are acknowledging that the threat posed by these organisations does not diminish with time. This change ensures that our responses are not constrained by arbitrary time lines but are instead based on the ongoing assessment threat. Today we can stand together and deliver an unequivocal message of unity and strength. We do this by affirming that in the face of adversity we stand together, united in our resolve to protect our way of life. This legislation is a crucial step in our journey towards a more secure, inclusive Australia.

I feel that no matter how long we have been in this place or will remain in this place it is our duty to ensure that we leave behind a legacy of safety, security and unity for future generations. Additionally, the provisions contained within this bill, while stringent in their approach to combatting terrorism and extremism, are also mindful of the rights and freedom that define us as a nation. It is a delicate balance but one that is essential to maintain. Our goal is not only to create a secure environment but also to preserve the freedoms and liberties that are the bedrock of our democratic way of life.

The prohibition of hate symbols as outlined in this bill is a clear example of this balance in action. While it restricts the display of certain symbols associated with hatred and violence, it does so with the understanding that such restrictions are necessary to protect the greater good, societal harmony and public safety. This is not an infringement of freedom or expression. Rather, it is a safeguard against the abuse of that freedom in order to incite hatred and division. Similarly, the provision related to the misuse of digital platforms strikes a balance between the need to counter extremist propaganda and the right to free speech.

Lastly, this legislation is a crucial step in our ongoing journey to safeguard our nation against the threats of terrorism and extremism of a particular kind and of all kinds. It is a clear demonstration of our resolve to confront these challenges head-on with a balanced approach that respects our fundamental freedoms while ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. Thank you.

I rise today to speak to the important Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, and I will be supporting this bill. It is an important step to stomp out hate speech across our country. The rise we have seen of far-right, white-supremacist and antisemitic ideology in recent years has been alarming. We're also all too familiar with the hateful ideologies born of Islamic State and the damage that has caused across the world, and even more so the rise in Islamophobia and that kind of hate speech. Terrifying is the willingness of those indoctrinated by hateful ideologies of all type to proudly display symbols of hate. These symbols are used to intimidate, harass, cause fear and make many in our community feel unsafe.

This bill establishes new criminal offences in several respects. Firstly, it criminalises public displays of or trading in goods bearing prohibited Nazi and Islamic State symbols. Secondly, it criminalises using a carriage service, such as postal or courier services, to possess or disseminate violent extremist material. Thirdly, it expands the existing offence of advocating terrorism to include instruction on doing a terrorist act and praise of a terrorist act in specific circumstances. Lastly, it removes the sunsetting requirement for classifying terrorist organisations as such. I commend the government for proposing an amendment to the bill in recent days to include banning the Nazi salute in public.

So, we need this bill, and it is important, because it relates to something we need to address. Many in this place will argue that it's about keeping our community safe, but it is about saying what the standards and the values that we wish to uphold are and that hateful ideologies have no place in a liberal democracy and in Australia. It is about protecting our democracy.

But I say that with a little bit of concern, when I consider the bill that the government and the coalition have just voted in favour for. Great consequences may flow from these types of crimes under this proposed legislation, such as a 14-year-old finding themselves stripped of their citizenship and sent from Australia, even if born in Australia. So I am on one hand incredibly supportive of banning and making a criminal offence of this hateful speech and symbols, but I am concerned, when I consider the other legislation just passed, about the ramifications of every conduct that is made a crime.

In protecting our democracy, we do need to keep ahead of morphing and changing threats to national security. The ASIO director-general, Mike Burgess said:

As a nation, we need to reflect on why some teenagers are hanging Nazi flags and portraits of the Christchurch killer on their bedroom walls, and why others are sharing beheading videos. And just as importantly, we must reflect on what we can do about it.

Obviously when we're talking about teenagers we have to then acknowledge the consequences that the government and the opposition wish to flow in relation to children. But I echo the sentiments, and this bill goes some way to addressing the concern that Mr Burgess outlines. I know these are concerns that we all share in this House. We can stop the display and dispersal of overt hate symbols and speech that are vulgar and have no place in Australian society.

Only last month, three Sydney men were charged with behaving in an offensive manner in or near a public place or school and knowingly displaying by public act a Nazi symbol without excuse. This alleged behaviour took place outside the Sydney Jewish Museum in Darlinghurst. The museum is a treasured place for many Sydneysiders. It includes exhibits relating to the Holocaust, during which six million Jews were killed under the Nazi regime. Although this case is still before the courts, it's exactly the sort of behaviour that symbols of hate can help inspire.

The Nazi salute should be banned in public, as the government now proposes to include in this bill. We must never forget why these symbols of hate are what they are today and what they represent. Millions lost their lives. The pain is still felt through the generations of their descendants around the world and the few elderly survivors of the Nazi atrocities who are still with us today. Such symbols play a role indoctrinating those who would cause and have caused harm to this day.

I also note that the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas has caused incredible angst amongst many in our Jewish and Muslim communities. Symbols of hate have been used to intimidate and harass. We must call this behaviour out. We must, in this place—as politicians, as leaders of our communities—ensure a respectful discourse. We must ensure social cohesion and not inflame already red-hot tensions. We must ensure social cohesion. As a successful multicultural nation, where over half of our population are in fact dual citizens, we must not import foreign conflict. We must value our social cohesion and value our multicultural aspect. I know that many of my constituents in Warringah share my concern about social cohesion and want more to be done to stamp out the hatred of extremist ideologies and how they manifest. So I support this bill, but I urge the government to continue to examine what further legislation may be needed in this area to stop the spread of hatred and extremist ideologies.

Writing for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in 2022, former police officer Kristy Milligan argues that the implementation of legislation such as the bill before us today is 'critical for law enforcement to effectively manage existing and emerging risks associated with extremist activity'. Ms Milligan's research highlights that there are many far-right symbols beyond those identified in this legislation today that also can be used as tools for recruitment, messaging across social media and causing intimidation in public settings. Other symbols that have often been identified on social media are used for people of certain ideologies to identify with one another and to incite that vilification. It's vital that we ensure our legislative framework is able to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to eradicate such hatred. It's clear that a constant review is going to be needed as to what hate symbols should be included.

The proper tools are needed to keep our communities safe. We must ensure that these symbols cannot be used to inspire or to recruit for criminal or even terrorist acts. We know what such inspiration can lead to. We must never forget that it was an indoctrinated white supremacist born here in Australia who killed 51 Muslim worshippers in March 2019 in the terrorist attacks in Christchurch in New Zealand. We want to ensure that these symbols cannot inspire these horrific acts of terror ever again. This bill is a step in that direction. I know the government takes this issue seriously. The legislation is needed, and needed now, but more must be done in the evolving and challenging threatscape that inspires extremist ideologies.

I urge the government to further outline measures they will take on this issue, particularly on the monitoring of online content and on holding social media companies responsible. We cannot let hate and division win, so I urge the government to stay vigilant.

On 25 September, residents in Kensington were shocked to see the result of a hateful graffiti attack on the home of one of their neighbours. In Lenthall Street, a residence had been covered with graffiti in black spray paint. The hateful symbols and vile language included the Nazi swastika. Sydney's Jewish community has a strong presence in my electorate, particularly in Kensington and the surrounding suburbs, and this Nazi graffiti occurred during Yom Kippur. It was a direct attack on the local Jewish community on the holiest of days of the year.

The timing of that public display of those Nazi symbols, which appeared alongside cryptic messages and references LGBTQ+ people, was yet another reminder of the brazenness of Neo-Nazis in Australia. We know that Neo-Nazi social networks share images of these types of cowardly attacks alongside messages of support, and we know that since the atrocities of 7 October, antisemitism has unfortunately been on the rise. All symbols representing hateful ideology have no place anywhere in our nation, and the Albanese government is determined to act to make it clear that there is no place in Australia for symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust, and that there's no place for those who seek to profit from the trade in these evil symbols and to use them to promote their hatred.

This is a comprehensive package of reforms to protect the community from those who seek to spread hate and to radicalise others to commit those acts of terror. Schedule 1 of the bill would create new offences for publicly displaying prohibited hate symbols or trading in items bearing these symbols. Those prohibited symbols—the Nazi hakenkreuz or hooked cross, the Nazi double sigrun or SS bolts—and those associated with terrorist organisations are widely recognised as representing hatred, violence and racism and are incompatible with Australia's multicultural and democratic society. Both offences would carry a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. The public display offence is designed to prevent the harassment and vilification of innocent Australians whose communities are targeted by Nazi, Neo-Nazi and terrorist organisation supporters in person and online. The trading offence would capture commercial profiting, including selling, renting or leasing paraphernalia containing prohibited Nazi symbols or symbols associated with terrorist organisations, and would target those activities.

Importantly, the use of sacred swastika in conjunction with and in connection with Buddhist, Hindu or Jain religious observance would not be captured by these offences. That is an important distinction to note from this exemption—that people who are rightfully practising their religion would not be captured for their use of religious symbols. We acknowledge the continued importance of the sacred swastika as an ancient symbol that has immense significance to the Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and other faith communities. The bill would protect the use of the sacred swastika, ensuring these communities can continue to practise freely their religion.

The government amendments would criminalise performing the Nazi salute in a public place, to address the significant harm that is caused to the Australian community by this behaviour. The Nazi salute represents ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with Australia's multicultural, democratic and inclusive society. It's almost unthinkable in modern Australia that legislation is necessary to ban these awful practices, but unfortunately it is.

As the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I'm working every day to honour those Australians who fought and died to defeat the evil that some within our community wish to revive. Recently, on the weekend, I was at commemorations for the 82nd anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Sydney. In 1941, we all know that the Sydney was conducting patrols and escort work in the Indian Ocean when, in November, it sighted a merchant ship 200 kilometres west of Shark Bay in Western Australia. The merchant ship turned out to be the German raider Kormoran, but it was disguised as a Dutch steamer Straat Malakka. When the Sydney was breasted up to the Kormoran, the Germans fired on the Sydney at almost point-blank range. In the battle that followed, both ships would be destroyed and all 645 members of the Sydney would perish. That remains the largest loss of life in Australia's maritime history. We acknowledge, during the 82nd anniversary, the contribution made by those 645 Australians who lost their lives in our name. They were fighting to defend the freedoms, the liberties and the democratic society that this bill goes to protect. That is why this legislation is so important. The direct line between Nazism that was fought and defeated, at great cost to so many Australians, and the rise of Neo-Nazism in Australia is truly disturbing. This bill will hopefully help eradicate that disturbing rise.

The bill also creates new offences for accessing and sharing violent extremist material online. The new offences will allow law enforcement to intervene earlier and disrupt violent extremists before their actions place the community in danger and inspire others to follow this dangerous path of radicalisation. Schedule 2 of the bill would create new offences for using a carriage service for violent extremist material and possessing or controlling violent extremist material contained or accessed using a carriage service. A carriage service would include a range of platforms such as webpages, social media applications, email, chat forums and text messages to download violent extremist material from the internet onto a digital storage device. Violent extremist material which is used to radicalise people to violence and instil fear in the community has no place in our society, and criminalising the use of carriage services for violent extremist material will allow law enforcement to take action against persons who are exploiting the internet to recruit, spread and incite violence and associated propaganda, particularly for the targeting of young people. The bill also amends the terrorist organisation listing framework and provides that the listing of a terrorist organisation will apply indefinitely unless it's revoked. The current sunsetting date of three years is unnecessarily short and doesn't reflect the longevity of terrorist organisations.

Schedule 4 of the bill would remove sunsetting requirements from regulations listing organisations as terrorist organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code. At present, listings cease to have effect after a period of three years and must be re-made by an organisation to remain prescribed. The removal of sunsetting requirements from terrorist listing regulations would help align the framework with the enduring nature of a terrorist organisation and their operation.

Debate interrupted.

I seek leave to make a statement not exceeding five minutes.

Leave granted.

This evening I would like to talk about transport infrastructure on the Gold Coast, which is home to myself, my family and about 500,000 people outside of school holidays time, when the population on the Gold Coast escalates to probably close to 700,000, if not well beyond that. The reason I rise to speak about transport infrastructure on the Gold Coast is that there are some things that need to be said about the work that this government and future governments need to continue doing.

To put some context around this, the Gold Coast is a very different city to many cities across the world, because it is a linear city. It's quite different to the cities that we see elsewhere in Australia, which have a central CBD and numerous roads and other transport infrastructure radiating out from that central business district. As a linear city, the Gold Coast has very different needs because the distances that we need to cover can be quite significant. In fact, it's well over 40 kilometres to go from one end of the Gold Coast to not even the other end of the Gold Coast completely.

There are three main types of transport infrastructure that need some significant ongoing work. Those three areas are the M1, and specifically the upgrades to the M1 that are underway now; light rail; and heavy rail. Let me start to break these down and again put a little bit of context around the work that is currently being undertaken on the M1.

Back in the leadup to the 2007 election, the coalition, which was in government at the time, made a commitment of some $455 million to upgrade the M1, with the priority area being from Tugun to Nerang. That commitment was then matched by Labor, and, of course, the 2007 election was actually won by Labor, so I'm very pleased that that commitment was matched and work did proceed. Unfortunately, the work didn't proceed from Tugun to Nerang. It actually tended to focus more on the outer suburbs of Brisbane and then head further south. What that meant is that the money that had been allocated, some $450 million by the federal government, ran out and a couple of things happened. It meant that instead of there being an upgrade to eight lanes, that was reduced back to six lanes, and it meant that we needed to go back and seek more money to ensure that the upgrade continued from Mudgeeraba south.

The section of road that is currently being upgraded is between Varsity and Tugun. I note that the minister for infrastructure has allocated an additional $70 million for that road to continue to be upgraded, and I do thank her for doing that because we do need that road completed. Unfortunately, because of the cost overruns and, I would have to say, the difficulties that the state government has brought upon itself in making sure that that transport infrastructure was upgraded, it means that it is now delayed and that there are significant costs associated with this. I am very grateful for the $70 million. That work will continue.

The other two transport infrastructure projects that I would like to see dealt with go to light rail, and it is a very contentious project, particularly on the southern Gold Coast and especially with the proposed route through Palm Beach where it goes down the Gold Coast Highway. It's a very narrow section of the highway through there. Many of the local residents of Palm Beach are particularly unhappy about the fact that the light rail is proposed to go down there. I would call on future governments federally and in the state to ensure that they are listening to the concerns of the residents and that they take note of and address those particular needs.

In the brief amount of time remaining, I'd like to put my support totally behind an extension of the heavy rail through to Coolangatta and potentially beyond. When I speak to residents or when they contact me about their particular concerns with transport infrastructure, the one thing that they ask for is that the extension of the heavy rail be completed. It currently stops at Varsity Lakes. It needs to be completed. It would change the lives of so many people who commute up to Brisbane and it would be a life changer in terms of access to the airport.

I seek leave to make a statement not exceeding five minutes.

Leave granted.

Today I rise to talk about the ongoing inequity faced by communities in our electorate. Those of us who live in Wallan, Whittlesea and surrounding areas know how hard it is to see a doctor when we need to. Wallan and Whittlesea are both over 50 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD but are classified under the current Modified Monash Model as metropolitan areas. If you look at a map, they are islands of 'inner city' surrounded by rural and regional areas. But they're not inner-city areas. Those of us who live there know it's unfair to be classified this way. We simply don't have the resources or proximity to the city to attract medical professionals and get them to stay in our community. Wallan is not Toorak, and Whittlesea is definitely not Brighton.

I'm speaking about this today because it has been recently announced that the government is doing a long-awaited review of the Modified Monash Model system, which is designed to incentivise and support doctors to come out and stay in areas like ours. It's a daily occurrence for people to come to my office with harrowing stories about their loved ones not being able to access medical treatment. The medical clinics in Wallan report that they are turning people away every single day. This failure to attract doctors has consequences for surrounding towns and the Kilmore hospital, adding pressure to their services. For years, none of the four medical clinics in Wallan have taken on new patients. The fifth clinic, Wallan General Practice, recently closed down because it couldn't get doctors.

The situation of these towns being forced onto MM 1 is a result of the former government changing the rating for a rural area and classing it as inner city, a punishment that it did not deserve. The very respected Dr Holland is retiring after 40 years because he can't get new doctors, and the pressure is just getting too much. Since Wallan became MM 1 in 2019, doctors have left our communities and medical clinics. Even those who live in town go to practices elsewhere because they can't into our doctors' practices. Our electorate holds the third-largest region for young families—young families who are struggling to see a GP. You don't get five days notice when your kids are sick, and the current system is putting young families under unnecessary stress. I'm pleased to say that our government is doing something about this. I look forward to contributing to the review and seeing the outcome, which no doubt will respond to this important issue for our community.

On a happier note I would like to report some fantastic achievements in the federal seat of McEwen. Over the past week, two schools in the area, Laurimar Primary School and Diamond Creek Primary School, competed in Energy Breakthrough's human-powered vehicles competition. At a three-day camp in Maryborough, students and their vehicles were put to the test in a series of trials and presentations, a culmination of effort over the past six months.

Diamond Creek Primary School had a team of 12 students compete, with their team placing 19th overall. These students were chosen based on their outstanding commitment to their school and whether they could fulfil the time commitment of the program. Over the course of the program, the students showed their teamwork and problem-solving skills. They also finished eighth in the race. We give a massive thankyou to the teachers that facilitated the program, David Pitts and Rosie Ford, and principal Jacqui Abrahams for supporting this great team. Further recognition is due to the local community sponsors and families of the students that made the whole event possible. The success of Diamond Creek Primary School would not have happened without you.

Laurimar Primary School was another school from our area that participated in the event over the weekend, with a whopping three teams and some fantastic placings, with Laurimar Phoenix coming first overall, Laurimar Dragons coming in second and Laurimar Griffins finishing fourth—not a bad little quaddie, if you could have had a bet on that one. The students' efforts and time, spending hours in the bike room and on the tracks, and their support of each other and growing teamwork was highly commended by all those who organised the event. Further, the teams received high praise for their sportsmanship throughout the event.

Congratulations have to go to the school's EB staff, led passionately by Mark Brown, Erin O'Connell, Sharni Anderson, Jacob Smith, Chelsea Stein, Sharon Arena, Rachel Plymin, Nikki Elliot and of course Des Chapman, Simon and Michelle Kneale, Mick Newton and chefs Renee and Dee, along with a committed band of parent helpers. But, of course, that all starts with the great leadership of Jason McBean, who has been a fantastic principal and has supported this event from its inception. At every school he has been to, he has been involved in this.

For this level of support and commitment shown by Laurimar, they even featured on Channel 9 news. This event showed the bright and promising future for McEwen's young people, who I'm proud to represent in this place. I've got to confess one of the great team drivers in there was my niece, Mia Potaziuk, who also performed well. But we saw a whole bunch of kids get together and have a great time, and that's so important for our future.

I seek leave to make a statement not exceeding five minutes.

Leave granted.

As this is the last full sitting week before we break for Christmas, I thought it appropriate that I take the opportunity to deliver a Merry Christmas message to my electorate of Longman. Christmas means different things to the various cohorts in our diverse nation. For some it's a time to 'partay'—to let your hair down after a long year and relax. For others it's a time of retail therapy—a chance to grab a bargain in the post-Christmas sales. For others it's a time of great stress and financial hardship, as they try and make sure their kids aren't the only ones on their street who don't miss out. Some people don't acknowledge or recognise Christmas at all, and in our country, thankfully, that is their right. And there are those that, after 2,000 years, still celebrate the birth of a man, albeit, some may say, a controversial man.

How we celebrate Christmas has of course changed dramatically over the years, with it now being an enormous industry, particularly for the industry I spent most of my working life in before coming to this place: the retail industry. Some may argue that we have lost the true meaning of Christmas amongst all the commercialisation and fanfare, and there may be some truth to this. But gift giving is probably a time that reflects the character of Christ more than any other.

I would like to touch on the true meaning of Christmas in the few minutes I have remaining. As I have stated, Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Why does the birth of one baby in a small town in the Middle East, a town called Bethlehem, warrant such a celebration over 2,000 years later? Jesus's existence and life are well documented not just by Jews and Christians but by historians, whether or not they hold a faith. I ask the question: why all the controversy? This is because of who Jesus claimed to be, which, according to those of the Christian faith, was God Almighty himself. When one does a study of the significance of this claim, we find simply that God, out of both pure frustration and pure love—that means failure to live up to his perfect moral standards—took it upon himself to be born as a human in the form of Jesus Christ and pay the price for the sins of every human being that has ever existed and ever will exist, leaving it up to them individually as to whether they'll accept that sacrifice, hence the celebration of his birth.

The matter of faith and how each person views Jesus and whether or not they believe this story and accept this sacrifice is a personal choice, and rightly so. It never has been and never should be any government's mandate to tell citizens what they should believe in, especially when it comes to matters of faith. However, for many years Australia was a nation based on Judaeo-Christian principles. As many have said, whether or not you have a faith, the Christian principles work.

I was not brought up in a home of faith of any description. We never went to church. However, my two brothers and I had these principles instilled in us by our parents—my mother, who was raised Catholic and went to church regularly, and my dad, who never attended church as a kid. We also received these values from our community. They're Christian values such as keeping your word, paying your taxes, being generous with your fellow man, not judging others, helping those less fortunate than you, paying workers a fair wage for a fair day's work, and environmental stewardship, just to name a few. With the slide of the Christian faith in our society, as evidenced in the recent census, where for the first time there are fewer people who say they are of the Christian faith than those who say they are not, we have seen the effects of a society that doesn't have a common value set, and people are left to make up their own individual values. We can directly correlate the decline of the Christian faith in our country to increases in domestic violence, the breakdown of the family unit, drug use, crime rates—basically anarchy. But probably the most negative effect of this change, which is the underlying cause of the increases in the issues I just mentioned, is that as a society we've become more inward-looking than outward-looking; in other words, more self-absorbed. Perhaps this Christmas we could ponder and reflect on this, consider others before ourselves and consider this man Jesus, who he claimed to be and what he taught—a man after whom even our history's time line is measured. It couldn't hurt.

However you see Christmas, from my family and me to you and yours: merry Christmas.

I seek leave to make a statement of not more than five minutes.

Leave granted.

In 2019 the City of Mitcham, in Boothby, passed a motion declaring a climate emergency. Since then, they've been looking at what they can do to curb emissions, bolster climate resilience and mitigate the impact of climate change. What is the role a council can take to accelerate renewable energy uptake in their community? Can a council develop a self-sustaining renewable energy hub within the bounds of their local area?

The program that they've developed is based on a bulk buy of solar panels and batteries to provide cheaper access from a verified source to local ratepayers—but it's much more than that. The City of Mitcham went to market to seek a solar panel and battery vendor and then put them through a rigorous external due diligence process to ensure that the eventual provider could guarantee supply, provide a quality product at a reasonable price and be financially stable.

The marketplace for solar panels and batteries is very complex. Cheaper options may not be safe or reliable, and more expensive options aren't guaranteed to be better. Of course, the energy contracts for feed-in tariffs can be extremely complex. How to choose? The City of Mitcham has done the hard yakka.

Council then held community information sessions where residents were given individual advice by the vendor on whether this program would work for them and their property based on solar access, power usage and any existing solar panel infrastructure. If the return on investment wasn't sufficient, there was no point in going ahead with the purchase. To date, in three rounds of bulk buys, 786 residents have signed up as part of the community bulk buys of solar panels and batteries. More importantly, they've signed up to the Mitcham virtual power plant, with zero deposit upfront, cheaper bulk buys and the choice to pay them off over time. Many homeowners have seen their power bills drop to zero. Others have seen them drop from $2,000 a quarter to as little as $45 a quarter Most of them are also eligible for a state government $1,000 cashback rebate. The council says these households already participating have now offset electricity generation of three diesel power plants.

Local businesses have also shown interest in the program, seeking to access larger batteries that, in the current energy market, generate a sound return on investment as well as community benefit. Mitcham council is also looking to put panels and batteries on its own buildings, meaning cheaper costs for council and, therefore, ratepayers but also cheaper power bills for sports clubs, community centres and other community groups that inhabit those council buildings.

So what is the Mitcham virtual power plant? It's a platform linking privately owned batteries in the community, and it's not just those participating in the bulk buy scheme that can get involved. Those who already have panels and batteries or buy them outside of the scheme can still be part of the virtual power plant. These batteries participate in grid events, providing essential power during grid demand peaks, reducing reliance on coal-fired power stations and safeguarding against blackouts. Moreover, this system creates a supplementary income stream for the battery owners. The surplus green power can be onsold to renters and those whose properties don't have solar access due to tree cover or perhaps because they're a ground-floor property in a high-rise, so they can also participate in the renewable revolution and access cheaper power, because it's a community scheme, not a profit-making venture.

Additionally, the council has partnered with SA Power Networks to pilot electric vehicle chargers on Stobie poles. Some areas of Mitcham have older-style properties, such as worker-style cottages, which have no off-road parking access. Others are in apartment buildings without the infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging. But they want to drive EVs so they can participate in the renewable revolution, not be subject to power prices and not have to pay to get their cars serviced. By this provision of charging points on Stobie poles, they too can charge their cars easily on the street near their homes.

Mitcham's ambitious program exemplifies the pivotal role local governments can play in steering a new energy landscape and maximising community benefit, and I know they're very keen to talk to other local governments and share their journey and expertise and the opportunities of this business model. It is great to see local government seizing the fantastic opportunities that renewable transition offers. They're delivering for their ratepayers, both residents and businesses. Many congratulations to City of Mitcham Mayor Heather Holmes-Ross, CEO Matt Pears and group manager Matt Romaine.

I seek leave to make a short statement not exceeding five minutes.

Leave granted.

I want to speak tonight about renewable energy and how that is playing out in my own electorate of Bradfield and around the country. As we know, Australia has the highest rooftop penetration of solar energy in the world, and there's certainly considerable interest in my own electorate. A few years ago I organised a community meeting to inform citizens about the options available to them. We were joined then by Dr David Mills, AM, who's a solar industry pioneer in Australia. Following that session, we made some changes at our own home. We installed a five-kilowatt solar system on the roof. The next step, a year or two later, was a heat-pump dryer. Then the next step, another year or so after that, was a heat-pump hot water system. This is up to four times as efficient as a traditional electric-element hot water heater.

We've been pleased with the results, and plenty of other people in the electorate of Bradfield are doing a similar thing. According to recent data, around 19.9 per cent of dwellings in Ku-ring-gai Council, falling wholly within the electorate of Bradfield, and 25.9 per cent of dwelling in Hornsby Shire Council, part of which falls within Bradfield may have solar PV. These are encouraging figures, but it's interesting to note that there are other parts of Australia which are doing even better. Across New South Wales, 31 per cent of dwellings have solar PV. In Queensland, it's 45.4 per cent. In South Australia it's 44.5 per cent and 39.4 per cent. So I say to my constituents: you're doing well, but there's room to do more.

We know that the renewable energy industry accounted for about 32.5 per cent of total electricity generation in Australia in 2021, an increase of almost five percentage points compared to 2020. As shadow minister for science, I've been interested to meet with a range of stakeholders to learn more about the science and technology underpinning the transformation of our energy system. Earlier this year I met with Rainer Korte, chief operating officer of ElectraNet, which operates the transmission network in South Australia, to learn about how that network is responding to the growth in large-scale wind generation capacity—there is about 1,477 megawatts of such capacity in South Australia—and the very strong penetration of rooftop solar in South Australia and the impact that that is having on the overall grid management challenges.

This month I had the chance to meet with SunDrive Solar co-founder and chief executive Vincent Allen and the team on a visit to their impressive facility in Kurnell. Interestingly, Dr David Mills, whom I mentioned earlier, is on the board of SunDrive. It's a company that makes solar panels using copper, not the traditional silver, using proprietary technology based on scientific research done at UNSW Sydney. It's a great story of Aussie innovation. Last week I had the chance to meet with the chief executive of the Future Battery Industries Cooperative Research Centre, Shannon O'Rourke, at Curtin University in Perth to learn more about Australia's battery industry and its place in the whole global battery industry supply chain.

There are a lot of very impressive people doing impressive work as our energy system transitions. I have to say, though, that I'm far from confident that the Albanese Labor government and Minister Bowen are managing this in a competent and businesslike way. On the contrary, I'm worried that we will see our grid become less reliable and affordable thanks to their mismanagement.

But, at the same time, what I think does stand out is the fact that so many Australians, in their homes, are making decisions—based in significant measure, I might say, on the economic incentives—to use solar power or a heat pump hot water system or other alternative technologies, and I commend those Australians who have made those decisions. Certainly there's some very impressive research being done and some very impressive technology being commercialised. Of course, Australia as a nation has played a very important role in the development of solar technology and its commercialisation and the steady reduction in cost that's been achieved, not least because of breakthrough technology. Certainly UNSW Sydney has been one university where there's been very impressive research done which has underpinned a number of generations of commercialisation of solar technology. But there are plenty of other research institutions around Australia doing very important work on this. As shadow minister for science, I'm impressed by the amount of innovation and clever work and thinking.

So I want to commend Australians who are involved in this transition across our energy system. They're doing a good job. I wish I could say I had the same confidence about the government.

I seek leave to make a statement not exceeding five minutes.

Leave granted.

Tonight I joined with many colleagues across the parliament for the launch of the national roundtable report by the Breast Cancer Network Australia. Making metastatic breast cancer counta way forward calls for all people with metastatic breast cancer to be consistently counted on cancer registries. It seems like such a simple thing for those of us not familiar with it, but it is so important because, of course, without good data we are, in a way, fighting in the dark. Last year BCNA estimated that over 10,500 people are living with metastatic breast cancer in Australia. However, this is a conservative estimate and the actual figure is likely to be significantly higher. So I pay tribute to BCNA and all who came together to do this work and launch the report, particularly all the women personally affected by metastatic breast cancer.

The report follows a national roundtable that brought together leading cancer and data expert to discuss the state of play in Australia and the way forward. It discusses the importance of collecting cancer stage and recurrence data so that there is an accurate number of how many Australians are living with metastatic breast cancer. The report makes several other recommendations, including forming an Australian cancer data alliance that can help in leading and implementing national minimum standards for data collection; increasing the funding of resources and staffing at state and territory cancer registries where needed; and improving the ability of cancer registries to consistently collect stage and recurrence data, with improved data linkages to health providers. As Professor Sanchia Aranda, who helped lead much of this work, has said:

Our approach has traditionally seen data as a risk to be managed rather than an asset to be leveraged.

Let us hope the momentum generated through this conversation will be a catalyst for lasting change.

Earlier this month, the Minister for Health and Aged Care launched the landmark Australian Cancer Plan, which aims to improve prevention, screening, treatment and management of all cancers for Australians, regardless of their background or where they live. It is a very important plan and it covers all cancer types across the whole cancer journey, from prevention and early detection to treatment, recovery and end-of-life care. Pleasingly, there is good alignment between this Cancer Plan and the BCNA report launched tonight, particularly with the Cancer Plan also including aims on cancer control infrastructure, supported by advancing the application of technology, research and data. I was so pleased to hear the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care at tonight's launch say that the government will respond to the BCNA report very shortly.

If it's not already abundantly clear, I am delivering this speech tonight on behalf of my very good friend Peta Murphy, the member for Dunkley, and I do wish that she were here to do it herself—but I'm also very aware that she will be looking at the Hansard to check that I acquit it properly. There is obviously no fiercer advocate for this work and for providing support for those with metastatic breast cancer than the member for Dunkley. As she has said: 'As someone living with metastatic breast cancer, I want to be a voice for those who feel invisible and as if they don't count. For health service providers and policymakers to plan cancer services and support, we need to know just how many of us are living with metastatic breast cancer.' The member for Dunkley has more than achieved that goal of being a voice for those with metastatic breast cancer, and the attention this report is getting is a testament to that. She is absolutely a fierce advocate in this and in all of the work she does.

So thank you to the BCNA, who put so much work into this, and thank you to the member for Dunkley.

In continuation on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, at present, listings cease to have an effect after a period of three years and must be remade for an organisation to remain proscribed. The removal of sunsetting requirements from terrorist listing regulations would help align the framework with the enduring nature of terrorist organisations and their operation. In addition, the mandate of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security would be expanded to allow the committee to conduct own-motion reviews at the time into whether a listed organisation continues to meet the legislative thresholds, providing an independent review process and ensuring that any listings remain appropriate.

In conclusion, the great success of Australia has been our support for multiculturalism and diversity. With that support comes respect for and inclusion of people of different ethnic backgrounds and, importantly, of different religions, faiths and beliefs. The success that we have made of multiculturalism is what makes Australia such a wonderful place to live. This bill—as necessary as it is, unfortunately—is aimed at protecting the sanctity of Australian multiculturalism and ensuring that all Australians have the right to live in peace and security, free from the hate and vilification associated not only with symbols but with the actions of a very, very few Australians. This bill ensures that those actions are criminalised, and it protects the sanctity of those practising their religions and theologies and living in peace in Australia.

I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I support the bill, noting that it reflects the same intent as a bill produced by the Leader of the Opposition and me some eight months ago. If the best time to move was in the past, then the next best time to move is in the present, so I welcome this bill, although it is delayed. We could have done this eight months ago. I also welcome the Attorney-General's announcement yesterday to amend the bill to include a nationwide ban on the Nazi salute, which, again, is in keeping with my original bill. This is welcome, although delayed. Although amended, it is welcome, and it is supported by the coalition.

In speaking on this bill, I first want to speak about the Australian character, because this bill reflects what we stand for as Australians. My friend the member for Macnamara has rightly said that we oppose antisemitism not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's the Australian thing to do. And it is the Australian thing to do, because we are a wonderful multicultural people. We're one of the few nations in the whole world that has never formally discriminated against or persecuted the Jewish people. In fact, Australia has always been a welcoming place for Jewish people. It's part of the reason Jewish Australians love this country so much, and that generosity has been returned a hundredfold, with a community that Sir Robert Menzies once said was not only in Australia but of Australia.

Jewish Australians participate and give back. We volunteer and we serve. If you go to any Commonwealth war cemetery, you'll inevitably find Stars of David among the Christian crosses. Go to the Australian War Memorial and read and speak the names of some 40,000 men and women who gave their lives to defend the world against German Nazism and Japanese militarism, both of which were autocratic, despotic regimes that believed in a vile ethos of the supremacy of one race over another. This is the Australian tradition of service personified by the Anzacs of the Second World War. Jewish Australians, like those Anzacs, love this country. We're a small community of about a hundred thousand people, a good-hearted community who have loved and continue to love this safe and welcoming land.

But Australia is not immune from the forces shaping the world—technology that spreads misinformation and encourages echo chambers—and the far right and the far left brood on imagined conspiracies. Antisemitism has been rising in our country for some time. We have witnessed the emergence of ultranationalists on the far right, who use the Nazi symbol and invoke Nazi catchphrases and salutes, and on the far left we see those who think Jewish people are an embodiment of power and privilege. The far left believe their antisemitic arguments are somehow novel, but their arguments are as old as time itself.

The Leader of the Opposition got it absolutely when he said this is a time for moral courage and moral clarity. We also know that such clarity inevitably emerges when so much is at risk. We saw that clarity earlier this week with the launch of a campaign, in newspapers and online, supporting the Jewish community and opposing antisemitic attacks. I commend all those who've added their names to this campaign so far and who've committed themselves to opposing antisemitism in all its forms. Let me encourage all fair-minded Australians to go to saynotoantisemitism.org and add their name to the list of Australians who are being counted at this time.

This bill is another marker in our national commitment to an Australia that is fair and free, to an Australia where all people are entitled to the freedom of worship and, as importantly, the freedom to live free and free of fear. This bill tackles some of the cultural factors and practices that are associated with the far right. The lesson of history is that you discount the broodings and resentments of the isolated fruitcakes and nut jobs at your own peril. The Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, warned about the increase in grievance based violent extremism when he said:

As a nation, we need to reflect on why some teenagers are hanging Nazi flags and portraits of the Christchurch killer on their bedroom walls, and why others are sharing beheading videos. And just as importantly, we must reflect on what we can do about it.

When I introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023, ASIO wrote the following in a submission to the Senate committee that supported my bill:

ASIO is aware that nationalist and racist groups use hate speech and extremist insignia in their recruitment and profile raising. Globally, there can be links between hate speech and hate motivated crimes, including terrorism. The possession of extremist material has featured in many prosecutions of terrorist offences.

The Senate committee report on the bill noted:

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) explained that Nazi symbols play a significant role among nationalist and racist violent extremist groups, both by signalling ideology and in-group belonging, as well as provoking or intimidating ideological opponents.5 ASIO further explained that symbols are:

…an effective propaganda tool because they are easy to remember and understand. They can transcend language, cultural, and ethnic divides; creating, distributing, and understanding them is not limited to a select few or one cultural or language group.

As the Senate report noted, ASIO contended that symbols serve to promote cohesion among some nationalist and racist extremist groups and provoke their opponents. That's why it's important we're banning them. That's why this is an important piece of legislation. It not only bans the use of Nazi symbols and salutes; it will also ban the buying and selling of Nazi memorabilia.

The Nazis do not deserve to be celebrated. I can't believe that that is a controversial matter in this country today. The Nazis are mass murderers. Forty thousand Australian service personnel gave their lives to ensure the defeat of the Nazi regime and its allies. The glorification of Nazism desecrates the memory of those heroic Australians. The glorification of Nazism desecrates the memory of the two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe, totalling over six million people, who the Nazis exterminated. The glorification of Nazism desecrates the memory of the others they murdered as well, including the 1.6 million Polish citizens, the 5.7 million Soviet citizens, the three million Soviet prisoners of war, the 312,000 Serbs, the 220,000 Roma, the 250,000 people with intellectual disabilities living in institutions, the 70,000 so-called asocials, the 1,900 Jehovah's Witnesses, and the thousands and thousands of homosexuals and political prisoners.

The trade in Nazi memorabilia is a putrid trade. It's a celebration of infamy. To those who've sought to complain about their losses from their investments in such memorabilia, my answer is: 'Whatever you've lost, it is nothing compared to what Jewish families have lost. Do not celebrate their murderers.'

This bill rightly tackles the tactics and practices of the extreme right. But we've also witnessed, in recent months, the eruption of the antisemitism of the extreme left. In many ways, the resentments and ideologies of the extreme left are little different from those of the far right. It is as unoriginal in its thinking as the far right. The extremist green left despise the far right, but they are little different. Like the far right, they believe they have special knowledge of how the world operates. Unlike the anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists of the far right, which are indoctrinated in the deep, dark corners of the web, the extreme green left, the Corbynite left, are mostly indoctrinated on Australia's university campuses. Australia's university campuses are the petri dish of antisemitism in this country.

Earlier this year the Australian Jewish University Experience Survey was released. It was undertaken by the Social Research Centre on behalf of the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Australasian Union of Jewish Students. The survey found that 64 per cent of Jewish university students in Australia had experienced antisemitism at university, and 88 per cent of those had experienced antisemitism on campuses over the preceding 12 months. Fifty-seven per cent of Jewish students had hidden the fact that they were Jewish at university. That is just extraordinary to me, as one who has always been proud of his Judaism and who has always been a very public Jewish person. That is what I want for every Jewish Australian. Nineteen per cent of Jewish university students had at some point stayed away from campus because of antisemitism. When antisemitism occurred, 85 per cent of students didn't make a complaint. Of those that did complain, 61 per cent were satisfied with the outcome. This was all before the events of 7 October.

Universities have become the hotspots of antisemitism because of what's taught. It takes the modern lens of the left, seeing the world through the lens of the oppressed and the oppressors. The justice in the world is denied through inherited privilege, so the argument goes, and that privilege must be struck down. It's an argument that says, to quote one Green left website, 'If you want to end white privilege, you must start with Jewish privilege.' I believe we need a formal, independent inquiry into antisemitism on our campuses, and I've called for that already.

Antisemitism is not a new thing. It's a hatred that has endured through human history. It robs Jewish people of their God-given individuality. It attributes to Jewish people a series of tropes and attributes that deny us our humanity. The old hatred morphs in every generation and so, sadly, it does in our own. But this bill, along with the actions and vigilance of countless Australians, will ensure that Australia meets this moment of moral clarity and does not flinch. I commend the bill to the House.

We need to be really clear. The words we use and what we say matter. The symbols we use and what we use them to portray matter. While, as we've seen in the debates in this chamber today, we may argue about what constitutes Australian values, it must be beyond doubt that in this country any form of hate speech, any symbol of hate and, indeed, any showing of hate is to be condemned. It's for this reason that I welcome the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023.

We must be united in ensuring that no symbol of hate is deemed acceptable in our society, and we must be clear that free speech is not hate speech, and hate speech cannot ever be defended in this way. We know that, as the Israel-Hamas war continues, instances of antisemitism, along with Islamophobia, are rising in Australia. There has been verbal abuse on streets, alleged assaults and death threats, leaving communities distressed and fearful. Children are frightened and alert as they sit at bus stops, while other people cross streets to avoid making eye contact with some they believe they should fear.

In newspapers yesterday, a two-page advertisement, from more than 600 prominent Australians, condemned the increase in antisemitism since the horrific Hamas attacks on Israel. As the signatories wrote:

Whether directed towards Jewish Australians, Muslim Australians, Asian Australians, Indigenous Australians or any other minority, we will not tolerate such conduct in our workplaces and firmly reject it in our communities … We are unequivocal in our resolve that racism in all its forms is deplorable and abhorrent …

In my own electorate of North Sydney, I've had many discussions with people from the Jewish community and have seen and heard their genuine fear and alarm. It is not an understatement to say that many fear they no longer belong in this country. One woman shared with me the fact that her family originally fled to Australia because they did not believe they belonged anymore when it came to their country of origin. The story of her family's migration is well known and has been shared across generations. Heartbreakingly, she recently received a message from a family member asking her, 'Where do we go now?' I say to her and to every person currently questioning their place in our society: you belong here; thank you for sharing your stories, your fears and your concerns, and I stand with you.

Our diversity is our strength. We all have a responsibility not only to recognise but to be prepared to fight for it. It is in this context we must do everything we can to prevent unacceptable behaviour and to call it out as soon as it is seen. That is what this legislation is all about. I welcome it wholeheartedly, and I thank the Attorney-General for moving it. There is no doubt that antisemitic incidents are on the rise and that this is both reprehensible and unacceptable. It's profoundly frightening not only for Australia's Jewish community but for all of us who wish only the best for our nation.

This legislation sends a very strong that there is no place in Australia for hatred, violence or antisemitism. Acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist attacks incites hate speech, which, in turn, incites violence and intolerance. It must never be acceptable that these things or actions are considered a joke. A uniform worn at a party is not funny. A flag flown in the back of a car is not acceptable, and an arm thrown up as you leave a court is definitely not okay. It is not funny. Our children must not be taught that there is humour anywhere in any of these things.

We must do everything we can to stymie intolerance and promote social cohesion. Any threat to social cohesion is a threat not only to individuals and communities but also to our national security. It's a threat to who we are. Recently, we've seen how fragile who we are actually is. We must restore and protect everything that we have worked so hard to create in this country, even though there are forces that would rather see us divided at this time.

Nazi symbols and the Islamic State flag are associated with hate, racism and terror and have no place in our society. The ban on publicly displaying these symbols is something that is arguably overdue. I say in this place: thank God we have finally gotten there. Groups who use these symbols in public places to intimidate, spread fear amongst the community, raise their profile and recruit new members are simply not what we want to see in our nation. They have the effect of depriving individuals of their sense of belonging and safety, which is demonstrably inconsistent with what we do know of Australian values and multicultural ideals.

Since 2022, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT have legislated offences for publicly displaying Nazi symbols, while Queensland and South Australia have similar bills before their parliament. Western Australia has announced an intention to introduce similar legislation. I welcome the federal government following suit. The federal government has the capacity to do three things: lead, coordinate and provide appropriate stimulus for our society as required. I believe this legislation does all those.

This bill includes exemptions and defence provisions where symbols are legitimately used for religious, historical or educational purposes, and these exemptions are important as they do provide room for genuine learning. We should never try to erase our history but learn from it. To erase it means we'll be doomed to repeat it. But when these symbols are used to incite hate, racism and terror, it is only right that we make it clear that that is unacceptable, and we will not tolerate it. All Australians should be treated with respect, inclusivity and dignity, and banning Nazi salutes and hate symbols is a welcome step towards achieving this.

I rise to support the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The public display of Nazi symbols, including the Nazi salute, is abhorrent to the Australian way of life. Nazi symbols have no place in Australia. I don't particularly like the phrase 'un-Australian', but, if there were ever something that was truly un-Australian, the use of Nazi symbols would be it. The display of these symbols is the antithesis of what Australia stands for. Australia is a multicultural nation, a nation where our strength, our richness and our depth of character is our diversity. We have built an identity on giving one another a fair go, on mateship, on respecting one another and on helping our neighbour. This bill builds upon this positive identity, and I thank the Attorney-General and the government for introducing it.

We are all diminished by the sharing and the glorification of an ideology which underpinned genocide, mass murder and the persecution of vulnerable groups of people. But in recent years we have seen a rise in Neo-Nazi groups which recruit and train mainly young men in these toxic ideologies, and we've seen demonstrations outside the Victorian parliament, where masked men made the Nazi salute—masked men? How cowardly. They themselves understood how shameful it would be to show their faces whilst displaying these vile symbols. As the horrifying events have unfolded in the Middle East over the last number of weeks, we have seen a rise in antisemitic attacks on our Jewish communities. This behaviour has no place in Australia. Many of us have family members who fought and died fighting the Nazi regime in World War II. We have members of our communities, friends and relatives who endured unspeakable horrors of concentration camps, who lost family and who found safe haven in this country. They deserve to feel safe in Australia. That's why I will be supporting this bill.

There are further reasons to support this bill. I'm a big supporter of free speech but not unfettered free speech. We already have a number of necessary limits on free speech that balance competing policy objectives such as protecting our children from sexual exploitation, protecting reputations and protecting people from vilification and hate speech. Social cohesion is a precious and potentially fragile commodity that we in Australia have managed to nurture while creating a diverse, rich and multicultural community. I fear in recent times that this cohesion has been under strain like never before, which is why we must take steps to criminalise the use of these hate filled symbols. Similar legislation is now being passed in New South Wales and Victoria, and it's more than appropriate that it apply nationwide.

I also note that the bill includes several exceptions to ensure that the legislation does not unintentionally criminalise actions that are unrelated to the promotion of Nazi ideology. Firstly, it will not apply to displaying the swastika in connection with Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism. Secondly, the prohibition will not apply if the display of a Nazi symbol is reasonable, in good faith and for legitimate scientific, educational, artistic or journalistic purpose or in the public interest. But, if a person deliberately seeks to incite hatred by displaying Nazi symbols so entrenched in the ideology of hate, then we should do all in our power to deter it. I commend this bill to the House.

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. As I said on the introduction of the bill, everyone can and must call out hate. This parliament can and must call out hate. Just as it was unthinkable that Neo-Nazis would perform Nazi salutes in front of the Victorian parliament earlier this year, so too has the significant rise in recent months in antisemitism in Australia been unthinkable. But, over the last several years, we have seen these incidents and more.

Today the House is taking a significant step towards sending a message that Australia is united against displays of hate. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 makes critical changes to the Commonwealth Criminal Code to support law enforcement in their efforts to manage and protect the community from those planning, preparing and inspiring others to do harm. The bill will ban the public display of abhorrent symbols of hate. These symbols offend, vilify and harass valued Australian communities. The bill will also put an end to people profiting from these symbols of hate.

The bill will make using online methods to spread and share violent extremist messages and terrorist instructions a serious crime. The bill will also enhance the protection of the community from terrorism by ensuring that the terrorist organisation listing framework reflects the longevity of proscribed organisations and the seriousness of terrorist organisation offences. It will ensure that people who praise or instruct others on doing terrorist acts will be guilty of a serious criminal offence.

The government has thoroughly considered recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and has amended the bill to address key recommendations. This bill will introduce important measures to protect the community from violent extremism and terrorism and the activities that incite them. It's important that all in this place come together in a bipartisan way and send a clear message that antisemitism and violent extremism will never be acceptable in our country and that it will never be acceptable to glorify the Nazi regime.

As my friend and colleague the member for Macnamara said in this debate, Australia stands for tolerance. Australia stands for diversity. Australia stands to protect the rights of those to hold whatever religion or faith they choose. I call on all members of this place to support this bill. I thank the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move opposition amendment (8) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (after line 22), after paragraph 80.2E(c), insert:

(ca) the Nazi salute;

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 24), omit "(b) or (c)", substitute "(b), (c) or (ca)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 4), at the end of subsection 80.2F(1), add:

Example: If the Nazi salute is performed or otherwise displayed in a public place and is capable of being seen by a member of the public in that place, then the Nazi salute is displayed in a public place under this subsection.

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (line 3), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 3), after note 1, insert:

Note 2: This section is not intended to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State or Territory to the extent that the law is capable of operating concurrently with this section (see section 80.6).

(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (after line 9), after subparagraph 80.2H(10)(g)(ii), insert:

(iia) the Nazi salute; or

(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 11), omit "(i) or (ii)", substitute "(i), (ii) or (iia)".

(8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 17 (after line 21), at the end of Subdivision CA, add:

80.2N Review of this Subdivision

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Subdivision to be undertaken as soon as possible after the end of 2 years after the commencement of this section.

(2) The person undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

80.2P Implied freedom of political communication

This Subdivision does not apply in relation to a prohibited symbol that is the Nazi salute to the extent (if any) that this Subdivision would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.

This amendment is straightforward and uncontroversial. It's designed to do two specific things. The first is to ensure there is a review of the subdivision. To explain this to members, the effect of this provision is that the parliament and the people of Australia will have the opportunity to revisit these new offences to see if they remain appropriate after two years. The opposition submits that this is a reasonable period of time. The second thing that this amendment does is seek to ensure that the clauses in the bill do not infringe any implied constitutional doctrine of the implied freedom of political communication. This is a straightforward measure that is intended to preserve validity.

For the benefit of members, the coalition considers it no longer necessary to move the remainder of the amendments that I had circulated earlier. These amendments had been flagged publicly by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, and, indeed, the coalition amendments were circulated to members even before the government got around to circulating its amendments. I note that the amendments the government has moved mirror those first circulated by the opposition. Once again, it has been a case of the opposition showing important leadership in acting on urgent legislation so as to keep Australians safe. Of course, the opposition welcomes the government's decision to ultimately change its mind and to recognise the very good sense of the measure advocated by the opposition for some time, which is that the Nazi salute should be prohibited. I'll have more to say on this a little bit later in the consideration-in-detail process. As usual, though, I must note with regret that the government waited for too long before addressing that issue. I thank the House, and I urge members to support the straightforward and uncontroversial amendment (8) circulated in my name.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity on the next sitting day.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (34) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add "and Nazi salute".

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 13), after "symbols", insert "and Nazi salute".

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 17), after "symbols", insert "and giving Nazi salute".

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (lines 18 to 25), omit section 80.2E, substitute:

80.2E Prohibited symbols

(1) Each of the following is a prohibited symbol:

(a) a prohibited Nazi symbol;

(b) a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol.

(2) Each of the following is a prohibited Nazi symbol:

(a) the Nazi hakenkreuz;

(b) the Nazi double-sig rune;

(c) something that so nearly resembles a thing to which paragraph (a) or (b) applies that it is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, that thing.

(3) Each of the following is a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol:

(a) a symbol that a terrorist organisation (within the meaning of Division 102) uses, or members of a terrorist organisation use, to identify the organisation;

(b) something that so nearly resembles a symbol to which paragraph (a) applies that it is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, that symbol.

(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 22), after section 80.2F, insert:

80.2FA Meaning of makes a gesture in a public place

A person makes a gesture in a public place if:

(a) the person makes a gesture; and

(b) the gesture is capable of being seen by a member of the public who is in a public place (whether or not the gesture is actually so seen by a member of the public).

(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 3), omit "section 80.2J", substitute "sections 80.2J and 80.2JA".

(8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 6), omit "section 80.2J", substitute "sections 80.2J and 80.2JA".

(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 9), omit "section 80.2J", substitute "sections 80.2J and 80.2JA".

(10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 27), omit "symbols", substitute "Nazi symbols or giving Nazi salute".

(11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (lines 29 to 31), omit paragraphs 80.2H(1)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) the person:

(i) causes a thing to be displayed in a public place; or

(ii) makes a gesture in a public place; and

(b) the thing is a prohibited Nazi symbol, or the gesture is a Nazi salute; and

(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (lines 18 to 20), omit subsection 80.2H(8), substitute:

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), it does not matter whether a member of the group sees:

(a) the thing while it is displayed in a public place; or

(b) the gesture while it is made in a public place.

(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (lines 32 and 33), omit "capacity as a journalist", substitute "journalistic capacity".

(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (line 36) to page 9 (line 14), omit paragraphs 80.2H(10)(f) and (g), substitute:

(f) the person genuinely engages in the conduct for the purpose of opposing Nazi ideology, fascism or a related ideology.

(15) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (after line 20), after section 80.2H, insert:

80.2HA Public display of prohibited terrorist organisation symbols

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person causes a thing to be displayed in a public place; and

(b) the person knows that the thing is a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol; and

(c) subsection (3), (4) or (7) applies; and

(d) subsection (9) does not apply.

Note: For defences, see subsection (10).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1)(c) and (d).

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), this subsection applies if a reasonable person would consider that the conduct mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

(a) involves dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred; or

(b) could incite another person or a group of persons to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate:

(i) a person (the targeted person) because of the race of the targeted person; or

(ii) the members of a group of persons (the targeted group) because of the race of some or all of the members of the targeted group.

Note: The object of this subsection is to give further effect to Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, done at New York on 21 December 1965. The Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 1975 No. 40 ([1975] ATS 40) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), this subsection applies if a reasonable person would consider that the conduct mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) involves advocacy that:

(a) is advocacy of hatred of:

(i) a group of persons distinguished by race, religion or nationality (a targeted group); or

(ii) a member of a targeted group; and

(b) constitutes incitement of another person or group of persons to offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate or use force or violence against:

(i) the targeted group; or

(ii) a member of the targeted group.

Note: The object of this subsection is to give further effect to article 20 of the Covenant.

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(a), it does not matter whether the conduct actually results in the hatred mentioned in that paragraph.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), it does not matter whether the conduct actually incites another person as mentioned in that paragraph.

(7) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), this subsection applies if the conduct mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person who is:

(a) a reasonable person; and

(b) a member of a group of persons distinguished by race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion or national or social origin;

because of the reasonable person's membership of that group.

Note: The object of this subsection is to give further effect to article 26 of the Covenant.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), it does not matter whether a member of the group sees the thing while it is displayed in a public place.

(9) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), this subsection applies if a reasonable person would consider that:

(a) the conduct mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is engaged in for a purpose that is:

(i) a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose; and

(ii) not contrary to the public interest; or

(b) the conduct mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is engaged in for the purposes of making a news report, or a current affairs report, that:

(i) is in the public interest; and

(ii) is made by a person working in a professional journalistic capacity.

Defences

(10) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person engaging in conduct mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) if:

(a) engaging in the conduct is necessary for enforcing a law of:

(i) the Commonwealth; or

(ii) a State; or

(iii) a Territory; or

(iv) a foreign country; or

(v) a part of a foreign country; or

(b) engaging in the conduct is necessary for monitoring compliance with, or investigating a contravention of, a law of:

(i) the Commonwealth; or

(ii) a State; or

(iii) a Territory; or

(iv) a foreign country; or

(v) a part of a foreign country; or

(c) the person engages in the conduct for the purposes of proceedings in a court or tribunal; or

(d) both:

(i) the person engages in the conduct in connection with the performance by a public official of the official's duties or functions; and

(ii) engaging in the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of the public official performing that duty or function; or

(e) both:

(i) the person engages in the conduct in connection with an individual assisting a public official in relation to the performance of the public official's duties or functions; and

(ii) engaging in the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of the individual assisting the public official in relation to the performance of the public official's duties or functions; or

(f) the person genuinely engages in the conduct for the purpose of opposing the ideology or purposes of a terrorist organisation (within the meaning of Division 102).

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).

Functions

(11) The references in this section to function or functions do not, by implication, affect the meaning of the expressions duty or duties when used in any other provision of this Code.

(16) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 21), after "prohibited", insert "Nazi".

(17) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 24), after "prohibited", insert "Nazi".

(18) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 26), after "prohibited", insert "Nazi".

(19) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (lines 26 and 27), omit "or global jihadist ideology".

(20) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (line 12), after "prohibited", insert "Nazi".

(21) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (line 15), after "prohibited", insert "Nazi".

(22) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (line 18), omit "capacity as a journalist", substitute "journalistic capacity".

(23) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (line 24), after "prohibited", insert "Nazi".

(24) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (line 27), after "prohibited", insert "Nazi".

(25) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (after line 30), after section 80.2J, insert:

80.2JA Trading in prohibited terrorist organisation symbols

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person trades in goods; and

(b) the goods depict or contain a symbol; and

(c) the person knows that the symbol is a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol; and

(d) subsection (3) applies; and

(e) subsections (4) and (5) do not apply.

Note: For defences, see subsections (6) to (8).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1)(d) and (e).

Jurisdictional requirements

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), this subsection applies if:

(a) the trading occurs to any extent outside Australia; or

(b) the trading involves transportation across State borders, either for reward or in connection with a commercial arrangement; or

(c) the trading occurs within a Territory or involves transportation to or from a Territory; or

(d) the trading is engaged in by, or on behalf of, a constitutional corporation; or

(e) some of the trading is engaged in by communication using a postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other like service within the meaning of paragraph 51(v) of the Constitution; or

(f) the trading:

(i) occurs to any extent at a Commonwealth place; or

(ii) involves transportation to or from a Commonwealth place; or

(g) the person is an alien; or

(h) the trading involves the person:

(i) selling the goods to an alien; or

(ii) preparing the goods for supply with the intention of selling them to an alien or believing that another person intends to sell them to an alien or believing that an alien intends to sell them; or

(iii) transporting the goods with the intention of selling them to an alien or believing that another person intends to sell them to an alien or believing that an alien intends to sell them; or

(iv) guarding or concealing the goods with the intention of selling them to an alien or with the intention of assisting another person to sell them to an alien or with the intention of assisting an alien to sell them; or

(v) possessing the goods with the intention of selling them to an alien.

Other matters

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), this subsection applies if a reasonable person would consider that:

(a) the goods that are traded are intended to serve a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose; and

(b) the person's trading in the goods is not contrary to the public interest.

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), this subsection applies if:

(a) the goods that are traded contain one or more news reports or current affairs reports; and

(b) each prohibited terrorist organisation symbol that the goods depict or contain appears in such a report and only appears in such a report; and

(c) in relation to each such report in which a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol appears—a reasonable person would consider that:

(i) the report was made by a person working in a professional journalistic capacity; and

(ii) disseminating the report is in the public interest.

Defences

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person's trading in goods if:

(a) the goods that are traded contain commentary on public affairs; and

(b) each prohibited terrorist organisation symbol that the goods depict or contain appears in the commentary and only appears in the commentary; and

(c) in relation to commentary in which a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol appears—making the commentary is in the public interest.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).

(7) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person's trading in goods if the trading is necessary for or of assistance in:

(a) enforcing a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, or a foreign country; or

(b) monitoring compliance with, or investigating a contravention of, a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, or a foreign country; or

(c) the administration of justice (whether within or outside Australia).

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).

(8) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person's trading in goods if:

(a) both:

(i) the trading is in connection with the performance by a public official of the official's duties or functions; and

(ii) the trading is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of the public official performing that duty or function; or

(b) both:

(i) the trading is in connection with an individual assisting a public official in relation to the performance of the public official's duties or functions; and

(ii) the trading is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of the individual assisting the public official in relation to the performance of the public official's duties or functions.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).

Interpretation

(9) The references in this section to function or functions do not, by implication, affect the meaning of the expressions duty or duties when used in any other provision of this Code.

(10) In this section, Commonwealth place has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970.

(26) Schedule 1, item 5, page 16 (lines 26 and 27), omit "capacity as a journalist", substitute "journalistic capacity".

(27) Schedule 1, item 5, page 16 (lines 28 to 30), omit paragraph 80.2M(3)(c), substitute:

(c) if the prohibited symbol is a prohibited Nazi symbol—any of paragraphs 80.2H(10)(a) to (f) applied to the person engaging in the conduct that caused the prohibited symbol to be displayed in a public place; or

(d) if the prohibited symbol is a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol—any of paragraphs 80.2HA(10)(a) to (f) applied to the person engaging in the conduct that caused the prohibited symbol to be displayed in a public place.

(28) Schedule 1, item 6, page 17 (after line 30), after paragraph 80.4(2)(e), insert:

(ea) subsection 80.2HA(1); or

(29) Schedule 1, item 6, page 17 (after line 31), after paragraph 80.4(2)(f), insert:

(fa) subsection 80.2JA(1); or

(30) Schedule 1, item 7, page 18 (after line 2), after the definition of displayed in a public place, insert:

journalistic capacity means a capacity as a journalist, editor, producer or other person involved in the process of making news reports or current affairs reports.

makes a gesture in a public place has the meaning given by section 80.2FA.

prohibited Nazi symbol has the meaning given by subsection 80.2E(2).

(31) Schedule 1, item 7, page 18 (line 3), omit "section 80.2E", substitute "subsection 80.2E(1)".

(32) Schedule 1, item 7, page 18 (after line 3), after the definition of prohibited symbol, insert:

prohibited terrorist organisation symbol has the meaning given by subsection 80.2E(3).

(33) Schedule 2, item 3, page 23 (lines 11 and 12), omit "capacity as a journalist", substitute "journalistic capacity".

(34) Schedule 4, item 18, page 29 (lines 12 to 14), omit paragraph 102.1A(2)(b), substitute:

(b) report the Committee's comments and recommendations to each House of the Parliament.

In June I introduced this bill to criminalise the public display of and trade in Nazi hate symbols. There is no place in Australia for hatred, violence and antisemitism. There is no place in Australia for symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust. And there is no place in Australia for evil and offensive acts that celebrate Nazi ideology. Today, the Albanese Labor government is strengthening our legislation to ensure that never again will anyone in this country be allowed to celebrate or profit from acts and symbols of the Nazis and terrorist organisations.

When introducing the bill, I said that if we needed to go further we would. And today the government delivers on that promise. Following careful consideration of recommendations by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its advisory report on the bill, the government is pleased to introduce amendments to implement recommendations that enhance protection for the community. I find it unthinkable that in this country, which provided refuge to my father, my grandparents and thousands more who fled the Holocaust, some continue to celebrate the ideology of Nazism. Sadly, antisemitism is on the rise, so today the government is making a good bill even better.

These amendments will make it a criminal offence to publicly perform the Nazi salute. Criminalising the performance of the Nazi salute will complement the other measures in the bill relating to Nazi symbols. Like those symbols, the Nazi salute is widely recognised and used to promote hateful ideologies, recruit followers and convey messages of hatred and violence. It represents the vile ideology of Nazism and conjures fear in many sectors of the Australian community whose predecessors suffered through some of the worst atrocities in history. It is appalling that there have been incidents involving the performance of the Nazi salute in Australia, and it has to stop. Any attempt to re-enliven and disseminate Nazi ideology must be definitively characterised as criminal behaviour. With this amendment, the Commonwealth parliament will be joining with Victoria and Tasmania, who have already acted to outlaw this public display of hatred, and South Australia, which has announced its intention to enact similar laws.

The amendments would remove the express reference to the Islamic State flag from the definition of prohibited symbol for the purposes of offences for the public display of and trade in items that bear a prohibited symbol. This reflects the concerns raised by the Muslim community and accepted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that the shahada and the seal of the Prophet have been misappropriated by a terrorist organisation. We will not let a terrorist organisation cause further harm and distress to any in our community. The government thanks the Australian Muslim community for its engagement on the bill and their valuable feedback that has informed these amendments. The government condemns Islamophobia and stands with the Australian Muslim community in opposition to terrorism in all its forms.

It's important to make clear that this amendment in no way makes it acceptable for anyone to glorify the evil ideology of Islamic State by displaying that flag. Instead, the amendments will introduce a new offence for the public display of and trade in items bearing prohibited terrorist organisation symbols. These are symbols that a terrorist organisation, such as Islamic State or the Sonnenkrieg Division, use to identify the organisation. Terrorist organisations advocate for and carry out serious and violent acts. These criminal organisations use symbols to build group belonging and to spread their ideology as well as fear and hatred in our community. Their ideologies are incompatible with Australian values and our way of life. These offences complement existing terrorist organisation offences by making terrorist organisations less visible and attractive to others. These new offences have been carefully considered and crafted so as to not capture legitimate uses of the symbols that are not intended to advocate hatred or incite discrimination, hostility or violence. These amendments would implement recommendation 1 of the PJCIS advisory report.

The offences for trade in items that bear prohibited symbols, be they Nazi symbols or terrorist organisation symbols, will bring an end to the profiting from these hateful ideologies and the notoriety flowing from the crimes these organisations have committed. These amendments do not accept the PJCIS's recommendation to delay the commencement of these provisions for six to 12 months. A deferred commencement of these offences could see a significant increase in the value of items bearing these symbols. There is simply no place for profiting from the trade of items that bear the symbols of ideologies of hate and extremism. And, just as we are opposed to any delay in the commencement of these new criminal offences, so, too, are we opposed to a review within two years, which was the amendment moved by the opposition. There is no need for these provisions, these new criminal offences, to be seen in any way as temporary, and that would be the effect of the opposition amendment. These bans that are included in this bill, as amended by these amendments, need to be seen as permanent.

When introducing criminal laws, it's important to ensure that offences do not interfere with the legitimate rights of journalists to report on such matters. That's why the original bill contains specific exemptions for journalists along with religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary, journalistic or scientific purposes. The government had agreed to further amendments recommended by the PJCIS to extend the journalist exemption to those working in a professional capacity as an editor or producer or in another role involved in the news and current affairs reporting process. The amendments similarly amend the offences related to violent extremist materials. These amendments are intended to ensure that all people reporting on news and current affairs in a genuine, professional capacity are not at risk of prosecution in relation to offences for the public display of prohibited symbols and violent extremist material. These amendments recognise the crucial role that the media plays in our democratic society.

The government thanks the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its comprehensive review of the bill and the recommendations that have led to the enhancement of the measures. We now look forward to support across the parliament to ensure these important reforms are passed this year.

As I said at the start, I find it unthinkable that, in this country, which provided refuge to my father, to my grandparents and to thousands more who fled the Holocaust, there are people in Australia today celebrating the ideology that murdered their families and millions of others. It ought to be a matter of great pride in our country, which is one of the most multicultural countries in the world, that everybody is free to live in our country without fear of discrimination. We have a good record, but we can do better.

This bill is part of that effort. It's something that every national leader, every member of parliament and every community leader should be working towards. We must promote and support respect, acceptance and understanding across the Australian community. This is a moment for the country to come together and do just that.

I rise to speak on the government amendments and express, on behalf of the opposition, the fact that we welcome the government's decision, at last, to accept what has been a longstanding call from the coalition that laws should be introduced to ban the Nazi salute in Australia. We have been calling for this for over eight months. In March we introduced legislation into the House to prohibit the Nazi salute. The government blocked that measure. In May we again called for a prohibition on the Nazi salute in the coalition contribution to the Senate inquiry. Labor recommended against that prohibition that we called for. Just last week the coalition stated that we would move amendments to the bill we're considering now with a view to prohibiting the Nazi salute.

I want to explain why the coalition has taken a strong position on this. The Nazi salute is one of the most powerful symbols of antisemitic hatred. It is a symbol that references, tragically, the industrial-scale murder of more than six million Jews and millions of others. For some inexplicable reason, for quite a considerable period of time, the Attorney-General and his colleagues were resistant to the proposition that the law should say that the use of the Nazi salute in Australia is never appropriate.

Yesterday, at 11.46 am, the Attorney-General reversed his position, and he did so in a tweet in which he said:

There is absolutely no place in Australia for hatred, violence and anti-Semitism.

Tomorrow I will introduce amendments to strengthen our legislation by making the Nazi salute a criminal offence under Commonwealth law.

It then took until yesterday afternoon for the Attorney-General to circulate the amendments to give effect to the ban. Of course, by the time this happened, the coalition amendments to prohibit the Nazi salute had been a matter of public knowledge for some days and had been circulated in the parliament.

It is somewhat surprising that it took the Attorney-General so long to get to this point, but a clue to his reluctance to act is to be found in an examination of comments he has made earlier on these matters—comments which would appear to indicate that he sensed this could be a difficult issue within the Labor caucus so he preferred to avoid dealing with it at Commonwealth level and instead leave it to the states. In an interview with Sammy J on the ABC, the Attorney-General had this to say about the proposition that the Nazi salute ought to be made illegal as a matter of Commonwealth law:

We think that it's really a matter for state police to deal with the Nazi salute and that's why we've left that for the state law.

In an interview with Gary Adshead on 6PR, again about the Nazi salute, he said:

… it's a matter more appropriately dealt with by state and territory law.

In an interview with Lisa Millar on ABC News Breakfast, again speaking about the Nazi salute, he said:

… we think it's better dealt with by the state laws …

And in a press conference on 8 June he said:

We think that the appropriate place to deal with that is state law.

All that being said, the opposition welcomes the fact that the Attorney-General has now acknowledged that the position he took for some months was the wrong position. We're glad that the Attorney-General has accepted these consistent calls from the coalition, has reversed his position and has made this commonsense change to the position that he previously took.

It is very important that this change has been made. It is very important that the Attorney-General of Australia recognises the important role that our Commonwealth criminal laws should play in setting the standard for what we, as a nation, accept. I express the hope, on behalf of the opposition, that this was entirely the Attorney-General's work and was not something he did on the basis of a direction from senior colleagues. In any event, whatever the basis on which we saw this backflip, the opposition welcomes it. We think it is appropriate that there should be Commonwealth legislation which outlaws the Nazi salute.

Question agreed to.

A division having been called earlier, further proceedings are deferred until tomorrow.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 20:47

Access to safe and affordable housing is a human right, and access should not be dictated by whether you live in the regions or whether you live in the big cities.

Tonight, many people in my electorate of Indi will be going to sleep without a roof over their head and even more will be sleeping on a couch or in their car. I know that the stories I hear from my constituents are reverberated right across Australia. I have met young families who are still living with their elderly parents, essential workers who can't afford to live in the towns where their expertise is most needed, and I have heard from older people, particularly women, who cannot afford rising rents. I have long said that there is no silver bullet to the housing crisis, and I broadly support the measures this government has already taken to get on with building more homes. We have the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, and just days after I met with the Prime Minister to discuss enabling infrastructure he announced the $500 million Housing Support Program to fund exactly this.

But we need to do much, much more. The government needs to do more to help the housing crisis, specifically in regional areas. As a regional Independent member of parliament, I've been calling on the government for some time now to dedicate housing funding to regional, rural and remote Australia. This includes dedicating funding for enabling infrastructure—sewerage, water, power poles and footpaths. Without this, towns in my electorate of Indi simply can't accommodate more houses.

My Unlocking Regional Housing Bill, which I introduced in September, seeks to guarantee dedicated funding for critical enabling infrastructure in rural, regional and remote Australia. The people of Indi elected me to be their champion, to fight for them, and that's what I'm doing. Today, I am raising the voices of more than 2,000 regional Australians who have added their name to this petition calling on the Prime Minister to back my bill. Shortly after this speech, I'll be taking their names and their ask directly to the Minister for Housing. Without my bill, without dedicated funding for regional and rural housing, this nation has no guaranteed path forward to ensure rural, regional and remote Australia get our fair share of housing, and this is totally unacceptable.

To the government, I say: I've done the work for you. There is a bill before this House, ready for debate. I am ready to work with you. I call you to work with me on behalf of the seven million regional, rural and remote Australians who are crying out for this parliament to help them in the worst housing crisis they've seen for decades. Let's get this done. Let's get this done right. Let's not leave rural, regional and remote Australia behind.

():  On the weekend, I was delighted to attend the Williamstown Primary School Seaside Fair to celebrate the school's sesquicentennial—it's 150th anniversary. The fair was a long time in the making, and it was a wonderful day. Melbourne's weather threatened to rain on proceedings, but it held back, and it was a great community day.

In fact, one of the best things about the fair was the way that it brought together so many of the institutions that make Williamstown the community that it is: the Williamstown Football Club; the Williamstown CYMS Cricket Club; the Royal Yacht Club of Victoria; the Williamstown Swimming & Life Saving Club; the Williamstown Tigers netball club; and the Hobsons Bay Girl Guides. The seaside fair wouldn't have been possible without all of them. There were rides, food and activities for the kids.

Congratulations to Principal Mat Montebello for everything you do for the kids and the community. Thank you, in particular, to the Williamstown Primary School parents and friends group, especially Lance Vinnell, Sam Hunneyball, Sharon Flahert, Jane Harris, Renae Reid, Sarah Kruse, Adrian Connolly, Heidi Wegner and Tim Cullinan. The success of this event was thanks to their hard work and persistence. One hundred and fifty years for Williamstown Primary School is a momentous achievement for the school and for the whole community in Melbourne's west, and the seaside fair was just one of a number of ways that the school community is celebrating this occasion.

I should say, though, that the images of the iconic building of Williamstown primary, built with local stone and by local stonemasons, aren't just familiar to those who live in Melbourne's west. Indeed, Williamstown primary is a part of so many Australian childhoods, even if they don't know it. It'll be familiar to most Australians around the country as the school from one of Australia's best-loved children's shows, Round the Twist. Leigh Hobbs, a past student of the school and an Australian children's author, used Williamstown primary as the setting for his iconic children's book series Horrible Harriet.

But for past students, such as Barrie Marr and Mary Booth, Williamstown primary is home to many fond memories across generations—and it's the generational impact of the school that makes it special. Ninety-two-year-old Barrie Marr attended Williamstown primary from 1937 to 1943. His father attended the primary school in 1907. His daughter attended in the 1960s. Mary Booth remembers receiving a special medal to mark the coronation of King George VI in 1937, and, keeping the tradition, her niece is now a teacher at Williamstown Primary School. Willy is that kind of a community.

Williamstown primary is a special place for many people across Melbourne's west and across Australia. The turnout and support at last weekend's seaside fair are testament to just how important this school is to the local community. One hundred and fifty years is a momentous achievement. Congratulations again to the principal, the teachers, the parents and friends—everyone who made the event happen. Your work ensures that Williamstown primary will continue its 150-year tradition of supporting our community.

I rise today to shed light on a beacon of hope and support in our community, a local entity that has been working tirelessly towards the betterment of mental health in Rockhampton—Compass House. This locally owned and operated centre has become a cornerstone in our community, providing essential support, empowerment and healing to those living with mental illness. Just last month I had the distinct honour of opening their new purpose-built facility, Compass Hub. This state-of-the-art establishment is not just a building; it represents a commitment to mental health and wellbeing.

Both Compass House and Compass Hub serve as safe havens, where individuals can focus on their mental health journey with the support of a dedicated team of caregivers specialising in mental health. The heart of Compass House lies in its emphasis on early intervention for mental health issues. Recognising the profound impact of timely support, they have cultivated a team of hand-picked professionals to provide specialised psychosocial care. This targeted approach aims to not only alleviate the immediate symptoms but also enhance the overall quality of life for those in need.

One of the remarkable aspects of Compass House and Compass Hub is their holistic approach to mental health care. Clients are not just recipients of clinical services; they are encouraged to actively participate in a range of group activities. Art classes, cooking sessions and excursions are not merely recreational; they serve as platforms for individuals to learn and practise basic life skills, fostering independence and self-confidence. These moments contribute to a person-centred approach to mental health care.

As we deliberate on the importance of mental health, it is crucial to acknowledge the pervasive nature of mental illness. It transcends boundaries of age, gender and race, affecting millions of Australians. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 8.6 million Australians will grapple with mental health concerns at least once in their lives. This is not merely a statistic. It underscores the urgency of providing accessible and effective mental health services. In this context Compass House emerges as a critical resource for our region. In fostering an environment that encourages early intervention, Compass House contributes significantly to reducing the burden of mental health issues on individuals and their families.

In conclusion, as we champion the cause of mental health, let us extend our gratitude to the dedicated individuals at Compass House and Compass Hub. Their unwavering commitment to creating a supportive space for those in need is commendable. May we continue to support and invest in initiatives like Compass House, ensuring that every individual, irrespective of their mental health journey, finds solace, understanding and the opportunity for a brighter future.

This week here in Parliament House we had the inaugural meeting of the Parliamentary Friends of Ports. Together with my co-chair, the member for Leichhardt, we had the pleasure of hosting members of Ports Australia, including port owners and operators, of all shapes and sizes; their supply chains, such as tugboat operators; port authorities; maritime unions; and pilot organisations—just to name a few. I would like to thank Ports Australia CEO Mike Gallacher and the chairman, Stewart Lammin, for organising the evening, and I also thank Minister King for joining us to celebrate the thriving port industry here in Australia.

Representing Port Kembla in the room were NSW Ports CEO Marika Calfas and Philip Holliday from the Port Authority of NSW. Rochelle Macdonald from Squadron Energy was also there from our area. Representing the Labor movement were Mich-Elle Myers and Dean Summers from the MUA and ITF, and they both work so hard to keep our port workers and seafarers safe at work. In the room were special guests from abroad, including Eranda Kotelawala and his team from the Solomon Islands port terminal; Patricia Ruf, administrative board member of Liebherr international; and Leopold Berthold, managing director of Liebherr's maritime and cargo division. All had travelled to our country for this occasion. I also met with Videlina Georgieva, the managing director of Svitzer Australia, who was a third-generation maritime worker.

This in itself is an example of how our ports can play an important role in fostering bilateral relations with our neighbours in the region. Australia is a trading nation, and the government is doing all it can to foster trade with our neighbours. On our watch, trade has been restored with China, while new opportunities and markets have developed in India and other countries, ensuring our quality grain, food, wine and even world-class education have a market. We are determined to overcome the false moves of the previous government and provide brighter opportunities for all of Australia. It is important for industry and government to work hand in glove on matters of trade and commerce, and I am proud of the record of this Labor government.

I am also fiercely proud of the port community I represent in Port Kembla, which is one of the busiest ports within New South Wales and indeed Australia, containing bulk-handling facilities for metallurgical coal, grain and industrial and mineral products associated with BlueScope Steel. It also the chief port for the importation of vehicles within New South Wales. Port Kembla is part of the Illawarra's proud industrial heritage, having acted as gateway for Australia's innovation and industrial transformation over the decades. Port Kembla is not alone in this regard. Ports all over Australia have contributed and are contributing to our economic development and prosperity.

Small grants make a big difference to not-for-profits, and the taxpayer funded Stronger Communities and Volunteer Grants programs have delivered significant benefits for communities and service groups in Wide Bay.

The Stronger Communities Program has supported the Maryborough Military Aviation Museum to build a shed where their volunteers can restore, catalogue and archive items for their collection, commemorating the vital role the Maryborough Airport played in training gunners and wireless operators for Australia's World War II effort. Funding has been provided to the Mary Valley RSL Sub Branch to purchase a new vehicle to transport veterans and seniors to and from their medical appointments. In a community where their only GP clinic closed more than 12 months ago, this is a vital service for the residents of this small community. The Stronger Communities Program also helped the South Burnett PCYC to upgrade their audio equipment, the Cooroy Gymnastics Club to fix the flooring and install fans, and the Kin Kin Community House to create a new outdoor space. Cherbourg Men's Shed has a new outdoor accessible work area where the men of Cherbourg can participate in personal and community projects and engage in creative activities.

Volunteers throughout Wide Bay have access to new equipment, training opportunities and reimbursement for the expenses they incur serving their community, thanks to the Volunteer Grants program. Emergency and rescue organisations like the volunteer coastguard at Boonooroo have been supported, and the Noosa Heads and Peregian Beach Surf Lifesaving Clubs have been able to purchase equipment to support their training and rescue operations. Sporting and recreational groups like the Tewantin Netball Club, Noosa Dolphins and Albert Park and Kandanga bowls clubs have been able to buy computers and other resources needed for their volunteers.

The volunteers at Gympie Medical Transport, PTSD Dogs Australia and Riding for the Disabled Maryborough have received support for the costs they incur in using their own vehicles to deliver the important services they provide to their community, and Graham House volunteers receive funding for training. In the lead-up to Christmas, I thank every volunteer in Wide Bay for the important work they do. I thank all the staff at Parliament House and my electorate office for their work, and I wish them and all colleagues here a happy and safe Christmas and new year.

Last Saturday, it was a great pleasure to attend a fundraising event held by Sam Sleitini, the pharmacist owner of Cincotta in Macquarie Fields, as he shaved off his mo to raise funds for Movember. Movember raises awareness for men and their partners to consider taking time out to make sure their health is a priority. Sam organises community fundraising events throughout the year, raising funds for Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation, breast cancer charities and so many other things. Shaving off his mo to raise funds for Movember was just another thing that Sam does for his community. In fact, during the morning, I was really happy to speak to community members about how much they value Sam and his team and what they do for them every day to support their health. A special thanks also goes to Ingleburn Lions Club, who kept everyone fed with a sausage sizzle. This is Werriwa today: charitable, friendly, diverse and eager to help everybody in need.

As 2023 is fast approaching its end, the year comes with reflection, celebration and downtime. We have the opportunity to take stock and recognise all that's happened, both the good and the bad, and look forward to a new year and the joys and challenges ahead. The holiday period is often filled with happiness, but for many families there's someone missing. It can be a difficult time, especially if you have loved ones missing from this year's celebrations. It's never easy. Emotions resurface during the holiday period. If these holidays are difficult for you, remember there are people that can help. Reach out to places like Lifeline. Their number is 131114. There's always someone there for you to talk to and help you through if you need it.

As we all embark on our holiday, we'll be travelling on the roads. This year's road toll is much higher than usual. Please take your time. Stay vigilant and stay safe. I want to be able to represent all of you next year, with no lives lost in our community. The weather forecasts are telling us that the upcoming season will be hot and dry and there will be storms and heavy rains. You have time now to prepare your property, and please ensure that you listen for storm forecasts. My community has already seen a number of fire and storm events, and my thanks goes out to all the volunteers and emergency service personnel, RFS and SES who help our community during this time. I really look forward to seeing you all next year. Stay safe. Have a wonderful festive season. Merry Christmas to everybody.

I'm asking—in fact, I'm actually pleading—for the government to change its decision not to trial age verification for access to online pornography. I simply can't believe the government is failing to protect our vulnerable children from online pornography. Why on earth would the government not at least trial age verification on pornographic sites, as recommended by the eSafety Commissioner? We should be doing everything we can to protect our most vulnerable people online. It's equally unbelievable that the government is trusting the online porn industry to self-regulate online through some obscure voluntary code that's at least two years away. These are the very platforms and services that are actively seeking to increase their customer numbers. It's their actual business model. It appears that the government is putting the vested interests of the porn industry above the safety and wellbeing of our children. Make no mistake: millions more children will be exposed to the most disgusting, degrading and, often, violent content in the two years it takes to develop some form of voluntary code. What possible harm could come from an age verification trial? It would cause much less harm than exposing even more children to online pornography. The eSafety Commissioner put two years of work into this, but the government has ignored that advice.

I've delivered hundreds of cybersafety presentations to schools and met countless young people who tell me what's actually going on for them and what they're exposed to online, often inadvertently. A simple online search can bring up some of the most inappropriate pornographic content. It can be just one click away, for children as young as nine, or younger—they're the kids I get to deal with. How on earth does the young man or young girl who has learnt—

An honourable member interjecting—

It's actually true; I deliver these all the time. The young man or young girl who has learnt about sex from these sites is then exposed to very aggressive, sometimes violent, first or subsequent sexual experiences that can involve internal damage, which is what the GPs have told me. It's behaviour that normalises violence against women and increases the risk of child-on-child sexual abuse. It's a driver of violence against women and children. How do those same young people go on and have a genuine and enduring personal relationship, when what they believe is a normal behaviour is actually the opposite?

Every day the government delays, more young people's wellbeing—physical, emotional and mental—is at greater risk. I know this from my own experience with this. Prime Minister, please, this decision is indefensible. Forty-nine advocates, eminent experts in children's and women's safety in Australia, support the trial. This is an age verification trial. Please take control of this and please change your mind and introduce at least the age verification trial. I'm asking you.

It has been a challenging year for Australia on many levels. Of course, there was the referendum, which had a difficult outcome for millions of Australians. But the other point that I wanted to make is that the government is working very hard to ease the cost of living, which, of course, is the No. 1 issue in this country for people who are fearing their next bill. We are delivering $23 billion in targeted relief, while not adding to inflation.

Investments in health and child care are making a difference in Barton. The tripling of the bulk-billing incentive has been a shot in the arm for our community's health sector. Over 67,000 pensioners, concession cardholders and children and their families will find it easier and cheaper to see their doctor in Barton. The government's investment in more affordable child care for Barton families came into effect in July. In just three months, the cost of child care in Sydney has dropped by 10 per cent and there are almost 10,000 children under five in Barton. This is very welcome news. Affordable, high-quality childcare education sets a child up for the rest of their life.

On a different note, may I also bring to the attention of this chamber something that is very difficult for so many. That is the conflict in Israel and Gaza. I have met with members of the Jewish community and also members of the Muslim community, and these differences—the anguish on both sides—is very real. What I do say is that it is incumbent on all of us as members of parliament to think about the social cohesion in this country. We hope for lasting peace and the protection of innocent lives. I wish every single person in Barton a happy and safe festive season and success and health in the new year.

As we come to the end of the parliamentary calendar for 2023, I want to wish all of my electorate a merry Christmas and thank them for their ongoing support throughout this year. There is so much to celebrate as we come to Christmas, and I would love to share that with you, but, to be honest, that would be to ignore what the people of Petrie are begging me to address. That is that, as we approach Christmas, 18 months after the last election, the people of Petrie are doing it tough under the Albanese Labor government. It is now clear that the Albanese government experiment isn't working. They are out of their depth, and the Australian people are paying for it.

Locals are telling me every day that, as they approach Christmas, they are facing very real struggles with the cost of living. Recently in Deception Bay I heard from Valeri, who told me that her family grocery bills have doubled. They have not gone up 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent but 100 per cent—they have doubled. Deborah has seen a monthly increase of $500. That's a monthly increase—that's a $6,000 increase a year. Bec from Deception Bay is worried about her future and being able to save, as she used to spend $200 a fortnight on food—it's now $450. That's over double. Adrienne has told me that she's now considering dropping out of university so that she can afford to feed her family. While all this is happening, the Prime Minister has been missing in action.

In March 2022, just a couple of months before the last election, the Prime Minister told us he wouldn't go missing when it gets tough. It's clear that Labor has the wrong priorities. Labor talks about itself, and the coalition is talking about the needs of the Australian people. Cost-of-living increases are home grown—that's what was confirmed by the Reserve Bank just this week. Labor's chaotic handling of the economy is imposing harsh new costs on Australian households, and families and businesses are paying. We're seeing wasteful spending—not just on a referendum where 60 per cent of the country voted no, which cost half a billion dollars, but on detention centres with 144 hardcore criminals released, which has landed taxpayers a bill of over a quarter of a billion dollars.

We're seeing Labor's renewable energy being pushed through the roof with high voltage transmission lines, with billions and billions of dollars being spent on this, which is contributing to inflation. Whilst Labor said, and Albanese said, there would be a $275 reduction in electricity bills, they've gone up $1,000. So the people of Petrie, up in Queensland, are feeling that—it's very real. They've had enough of this government. It's not good. And, instead of learning the lessons, Labor is doubling down on this. In 2023, the Prime Minister and those opposite said life would be better under them. In fact, Australians are copping it in the neck and in the wallet—it's a lot worse. They need a change in government.

Dust diseases: they come in varied forms and are equally as insidious. They are diseases that have afflicted, and continue to afflict, many blue-collar workers and their families across Australia, especially in my electorate of Spence—one that was infamously home to a plant formerly owned and operated by James Hardie all the way up until 1987. It manufactured pipes and it manufactured fittings. It manufactured the terminal illnesses and deaths of scores of its workers and those they went back home to, carrying the deadly fibres home to those in their lives, who they unknowingly sacrificed everything to support by working at a place that would, in the end, quite literally work them to death.

I mention this here today because last week was National Asbestos Awareness Week, an occasion I also marked in this place last year. And, in a little over a month's time, it will have been 20 years to the day that it became illegal to use asbestos in Australia. It is certainly a milestone worth sombre commemoration, but even this is marred by three salient facts. One is that, in this year alone, asbestos related diseases have claimed 4,000 lives in Australia, with many people exposed being diagnosed prior to the ban with the by-product of their exposure to asbestos. Another is the fact that this country's buildings are still tainted by over six million tonnes of asbestos and that, despite all of this history, it appeared as if we weren't learning.

Thus, we were slowly marching towards repeating it when we seemingly condoned workers being exposed to respirable crystalline silica, particularly through working on engineered stone, with one in four stonemasons that work with it contracting silicosis. It gets harder to deflect as either mere coincidence or a by-product of poor adherence to safe work practices. The only safe work practice in existence for engineered stone is to not work with it—period. The previous government was first made aware of this atrocity back in 2014, and here we are. In stark contrast, the Albanese Labor government swiftly commissioned a report by Safe Work Australia, which recommends putting a timely and long overdue end to this industry. Our government is leading from the front after years of inaction, with Minister Burke convening the state ministers together on 13 December to hopefully agree to ban engineered stone before Christmas.

But, if we can't find a united front at that meeting, I am thankful that my state of South Australia will go it alone if required. I am grateful for the leadership shown by the Malinauskas Labor government and especially that of its minister for industrial relations, Kyam Maher. Every day of further inaction means more workers are exposed to a life sentence—one where every cough resonates grimly like a clock ticking, counting down to an inevitability and one that is preventable and avoidable, as it is a national tragedy in real time.

There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The House will not be surprised that I strongly support the bill. My grandmother, Gerda Cohen, was one of the few thousand people who escaped Nazi Germany and were granted visas in Australia prior to 1939. There were around 9,000 given to Jewish refugees, of which my grandmother was one. She left Germany in 1938 and came and sought refuge in this great country. Another was the Attorney-General's father, George Dreyfus. Both were among the few, very lucky Jewish refugees who were escaping Nazi Germany and who were granted citizenship by our great country. I am proud to serve alongside the Attorney-General. I am hopeful that the parliament and the country consider it not a bad deal to have two people who are descendants of stateless refugees from Nazi Germany who have been able to live full and rich lives in a wonderful country and give back to this incredible nation that we all believe in.

Like all people in the Jewish community, who are frankly on edge due to a range of different things that are going on, one thing that I find extremely confronting that has happened of late is the increase in the brazen nature of public displays of Neo-Nazism, especially in my home city of Melbourne. This is an extremely confronting and callous public movement that is seeking attention and seeking to publicise this old and dark ideology, which Australia stood against, which Australia has never, ever endorsed, and never will. And yet those people have sought to go on the streets of Melbourne and outside the parliament of Victoria to spread hate, to bring attention to their bigotry, to try and intimidate, and to, frankly, counter the very multiculturalism that we hold dear.

During the COVID lockdowns, we saw Nazi symbols and antisemitic slogans displayed during antilockdown and antivaccination demonstrations in Melbourne and other cities. It was a confusion of what the Nazi regime did, and it was a brazen display of symbols that need to be held far more sensitively than that. The pandemic opened a space for Neo-Nazis to exploit, and they've seen another opportunity in the campaign to oppose the rights of the LGBTIQ community as well. That culminated in a shocking spectacle in March, when a group of Neo-Nazis turned up at an anti-trans rally in Melbourne, giving the Nazi salute and carrying on in a grossly offensive manner. This underlines the fact that it is not only Jewish community which is alarmed by the rise of Neo-Nazism. Of course, it wasn't only the Jewish community who were the targets of the Nazi regime. Others who quite rightly felt threatened by these activities where the LGBTIQ community, migrant communities, and particularly recent immigrants from African countries who have been subject to malicious campaigns against them as well.

These events, quite rightly, called for government action. I was one of the many people who called for our laws to be considered and to determine whether or not further action needed to be taken by state and territory governments and the federal government to ensure that brazen public displays of that bigoted ideology could not occur in our cities. I did so because we should all recall, in having a sense of history, that the fascist and Nazi movements in Europe in the 1920s were initially dismissed as a handful of cranks. But, when economic crisis struck, those individuals were able to exploit the masses and exploit the crisis to gain power, with the worst of consequences. Now, no-one in Australia thinks that we are in danger of a takeover by these thugs. But, at the same time, we must be vigilant, stand against them and take preventive action when it is prudent to do so.

In considering this bill, I would like to talk about what we are putting forward and clarify one important differentiation. The word 'swastika' comes from the ancient Sanskrit language and properly refers to a religious symbol used by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. Anyone who has travelled to India or South-East Asia will have seen the swastika symbol on temples, on Buddha images and in works of art. In the 1920s, the German national socialists adopted the swastika as their symbol because they associated it with the mystical conception of the Aryan race, which they imagined to have originated in India. But they did not use the word 'swastika'. The German name for the symbol was hakenkreuz, which means hooked cross. It's important that we maintain and remember this distinction.

The bill before us seeks to ban the public display of the Nazi hakenkreuz, not the Hindu, Buddhist or Jain religious symbols. It also bans the trade of Nazi memorabilia, such as medals, badges and armbands, nearly all of which feature the Nazi hakenkreuz. Importantly, this will not affect the sale of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religious items which feature the swastika. The Hindu Council of Australia and representatives of the Australian Buddhist community were consulted about this aspect of the bill and have indicated their support. The other Nazi symbol that this bill seeks to ban is the SS runes, which is the double lightning bolt insignia worn by members of the SS on their uniforms. The double runes represent the letters SS, which stand for Schutzstaffel, or protection squads. This symbol is widely used by Neo-Nazi groups, particularly in places where the display of the hakenkreuz is banned.

Government amendments to this bill will also criminalise performing the Nazi salute in public places, and I acknowledge the member for Fisher for his work on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and for his vigilance and recommendations as part of that process. I do think that it is important to note that this bill will complement state and territory legislation so that, if someone were on our streets performing the Nazi salute, it would predominantly be the Victorian or the state based police that would turn up and address these matters. However, I also believe that it is prudent to have a complementary measure so that there is no place in our country where it is acceptable to perform the Nazi salute and that police, be they state police or Federal Police, could take action to combat that.

I met with the Victoria Police, and they did mention to me—as well as to the Premier and others in various meetings that we have had—that the clear nature of the Victorian laws that have been brought in will assist them in policing; that, if someone were to perform the Nazi salute in Victoria, they would take action; and that it was their intention to enforce that law to its fullest extent. I thank Victoria Police for that commitment, and I thank all governments around the country who have taken steps to ban the Nazi salute. I look forward to more legislation complementing this one as well.

As my community is facing a rise in antisemitism—the worst I've seen in my lifetime—this legislation sends a strong message that you cannot spread hate and violence and glorify the worst regime of humankind. One of the important things that this bill contains is intent. If you want to profit from vilification and racism, this legislation makes it harder. If you want to spread hate and violence, this legislation makes it harder. No-one peacefully practising their faith will be impacted. When I speak at citizenship ceremonies, I say that multiculturalism and diversity makes us stronger and we should do everything that we can to protect it.

The scenes we saw in my beautiful city of Melbourne go against everything that makes us Australian. They go against our collective spirit, our celebration of diversity, our celebration of minorities and our celebration of culture and freedom. The scenes that we saw in Melbourne, and the brazen nature of those seeking to glorify a murderous regime in the very worst possible way, are scenes that will continuously haunt Jewish communities and many other communities in our country. I think it is important that we in this place come together in a bipartisan way and send a clear message that those scenes will never be acceptable in our great country, that it will never be acceptable in our country to glorify the Nazi regime. Australia stands for tolerance, Australia stands for diversity and Australia stands to protect people's right to hold whatever religion or faith they want.

I am praying that, over the coming weeks and months, the world does become more peaceful, that people do refrain from shouting and screaming at one another and spreading hate. I pray we remember the thing that built this country: a collective sense of friendship, mateship, of protecting one another and making sure everyone has a fair go in this country.

I commend this bill to the parliament. I thank those who have worked on it, government and opposition members alike. I hope that we never see the events that happened in Germany happen anywhere in the world, and I hope that we never again see Neo-Nazism glorified in our great country.

I acknowledge the member for Macnamara and his heartfelt speech. I think that Jewish Australians across this country should be very proud of the efforts that he has made in representing them at this very difficult and dark time, not just around the world but in Australia.

It won't come as any great surprise to you or others that I support this bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. As the deputy chair of the PJCIS, I was instrumentally involved in the report which examined the bill. Protecting Australians is our utmost responsibility in this place. It's the responsibility of the member for Macnamara, it's my responsibility and it's the responsibility of the Prime Minister and his government. In many ways the government is falling short in that duty of protecting Australians, but I'll return to that in a moment.

I am encouraged that, by and large, both major parties are standing together to see this prohibited hate symbols bill through. It has brought into question the character of our country as a nation of many faiths, and it has challenged our approach to balancing the freedoms of speech and association, the preservation of our history, and protecting the oppressed and the marginalised. I think that we've struck the right balance in many ways, and I commend my colleagues on both sides of the House for their work in relation to the bill.

As we outlined in the committee, violent extremists use symbols to signal their ideology to a wide-reaching audience, to recruit and inspire behaviours from like-minded individuals and to establish in-group belonging. The changes outlined in this bill will go some way—albeit not far enough—in stemming the flow of violent extremism.

The legislation creates four new offences. It will be unlawful to display prohibited symbols in a public place. A public place is any place in which the symbol is capable of being seen. That means that, although the symbol might not actually be seen, if it is possible for it to be seen it will be an offence. It will be unlawful to trade goods that depict or contain a prohibited symbol. That includes selling, leasing, exchanging or renting goods; preparing or packaging goods for supply with the intention of selling; transporting goods with the intention of selling; guarding or concealing goods with the intention of selling; and possessing goods with the intention of selling. It will be unlawful to fail to comply with a direction to cease the display of prohibited symbols in public.

A new offence is also created to respond to the increase in the use of mobile devices. This makes it unlawful to use a carriage service to deal with violent extremist material, including the access, transmission, solicitation, possession or control of violent extremist material. It also prohibits symbols that are variants of the listed symbols or that are likely to be confused with or mistaken for one of those symbols. The bill strengthens penalties for those who advocate terrorism. The legislation also allows the PJCIS to streamline reviews into listed terrorist organisations, allowing own motion reviews where the organisation in question meet legislative thresholds.

'What symbols will be banned under this bill?' I hear you ask. The question is: which of them will be prohibited? Symbols of listed terrorist organisations will be banned. Groups like al-Qaeda and Hamas could be included. These are groups who have perpetrated some of the worst crimes seen in generations: enslaving children and women into terror and sexual servitude and committing attacks in cities and towns across the world, most recently against Israeli women and children. Their terror continues to impact Australians both at home and abroad.

The Nazi hakenkreuz will be banned, although the unbent swastika, which is an ancient eastern symbol will remain protected. The Nazi hakenkreuz was adopted by the Third Reich as the official symbol of the Nazi party. It represents the persecution and systematic murder of more than six million Jewish people, as well as other groups oppressed because of their sexual orientation, religion, disability, political views and ethnicity. It has been a great affront to the Buddhist, Hindu and Jains people, whose ancient use of the unbent swastika has been misappropriated by the Nazis.

The PJCIS acknowledged similar evidence in relation to the Islamic State flag. Muslim groups raised concerns that the words displayed on the Islamic State flag constitute fundamental principles of the Islamic faith.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:1 8 to 11:0 3

The Islamic State flag features the shahada and the seal of the Prophet Mohammed, but these are central tenets to the Islamic faith. Banning them would be akin to banning the cross or the crucifix to Christians or the Star of David to Jews. That's why the committee recommended removing the Islamic State flag from the list of prohibited symbols, while leaving room to ban other symbols of listed terrorist organisations, because it is what is contained on the flag—the shahada—which is so central to the Islamic faith. I'm glad to see that the parliament has the opportunity now to support that recommendation.

The Nazi double-sig rune will also be banned. Many people may know that as the two lightning rods. The symbol was adopted by the Schutzstaffel, a Nazi paramilitary organisation which was responsible for some of the worst atrocities leading up to and during World War II.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:0 4 to 11:12

The Nazi double-sig rune was adopted by the Schutzstaffel, a Nazi paramilitary organisation which was responsible for some of the worst atrocities leading up to and during World War II. I'm pleased that, at the eleventh hour, Labor have finally caved in to join the campaign of the coalition to ban the Nazi salute. These symbols and gestures have been used in coordinated and effective propaganda campaigns evoking fear and staining the pages of our history with the most brutal violence. As I said in my additional comments to the PJCIS report on this legislation:

The rise of Hitler's Third Reich and his ideological quest that the German people would become the "Master Race" remains a stain on the history of humanity and will remain ever thus. It is a period of history in the 20th Century that until very recently, was almost universally recognised as an era that must never be repeated.

Terrorist symbols, the Nazi hakenkreuz, the sig rune and the Nazi salute represent an extreme hate which has inspired some of the worst atrocities in human history. It is a hate which has fed genocide, terrorism, slavery and crimes against humanity. It is a hate which on 7 October inspired one of the most egregious and evil terror attacks in modern history against the people of Israel. It is a hate which has festered and flourished in the dark recesses of the online world. And it is a hate which has now moved into the public sphere in Australia's capital cities and splashed across mainstream media. Last week we had kids skipping school to call for Israel's annihilation. 'From the river to the sea', they cried. We had teachers, bureaucrats and left-wing media encouraging children to invoke violence against Jewish people. I am ashamed that this kind of behaviour would happen in Australia, but, as the old proverb goes, there is nothing new under the sun.

Seventy-five years ago, the world met at Evian in France to discuss options to protect European Jewish people from the Nazis. I was recently in New York and DC, and I attended the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. To my shame, there was a plaque in the Holocaust museum. Seventy-five years ago, when asked about taking Jewish refugees, Australia said, 'As we have no racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one.' That was our response to protecting Jews 75 years ago. In response to a globalising economy, Australia introduced the White Australia policy. In 2005, thousands of Australians participated in protests targeting Middle Eastern looking people, which led to the Cronulla riots. Our universities continue to facilitate antisemitic activities and material while Jewish students face ongoing discrimination. Attacks on synagogues and Jewish Australians are on the rise, with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry reporting an increase of up to 482 per cent of acts of antisemitism in the last seven weeks alone. We have seen protests across our capital cities where people invoke extremist ideologies and symbols, and online platforms have seen the most heinous antisemitism and extremism targeting young people, much like other radical groups. The reality is that the problem is getting worse. Banning these symbols is one step towards stemming the flow of propaganda used by radical groups in public places and online. This is about keeping people safe, disrupting hate and weeding out extremists. It's also about protecting survivors from the trauma that they have experienced.

Earlier this year, the coalition introduced legislation to ban the display, use and exercise of Nazi symbols, including the Nazi salute. I want to pay tribute to my friend Julian Leeser, the member for Berowra, for his courage and leadership on this issue. While the coalition agrees with the bill we are debating, I'm frustrated that it took a sustained campaign from the coalition to see the Nazi salute included in this bill. Labor initially claimed that banning the Nazi salute wouldn't be appropriate for the Commonwealth, stating that it is not an appropriate matter for state and territory law. Australians are fed up with this Labor government—always on the back foot, always behind and always playing catch-up when it comes to our national economy and our national security. Once again, it took the opposition to embarrass the Albanese Labor government into action to keep Australians safe.

The issue here is that the federal Labor government do not have political intestinal fortitude. Australian families are struggling, businesses are closing and the world is in a fragile state, and Australians, particularly Jewish Australians, are worried. They are worried about going to school. They are worried about wearing school uniforms. They are worried about wearing religious regalia that would identify them as Jewish. But now is not the time for politics or trickery. Quit the blaming, the gameplay and the ideological fancies. Let's get on and ensure that the rise of antisemitism across the world does not find a home in Australia—not in 2023, not again, not now, not ever.

In closing, I want to encourage all of my parliamentary colleagues, including the member for Moreton, who's sitting opposite me, to join the Israel Allies Caucus. The Israel Allies Caucus is a group of parliamentarians in 50 countries who stand with the people of Israel. I've been asked to chair the Israel Allies Caucus in Australia, a group that will hopefully be bipartisan. I invite the member for Moreton to join it. It is a group of parliamentarians across the world who stand with the people of Israel and stand with them at this darkest hour. (Time expired).

I don't think anyone has forgotten those shocking images of Neo-Nazis standing on the streets of Melbourne at anti-refugee and anti-transgender rallies. It was in the seat of Macnamara. I know that would be particularly repugnant to my friend Josh Burns, the member for Macnamara. More recently, a friend who dropped into the shops in regional Queensland wearing a Voice T-shirt, a 'yes' T-shirt, was confronted by two men with swastika tattoos saying that, if she were a bloke, they would bash her. We shouldn't have to deal with this in 2023. Hate symbols are being used as a beacon to attract more hate—a beacon to influence and to spread hate and to destroy our Australian way of life. So it's time that we stop these symbols being used, and this is what the bill before the chamber aims to do.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to criminalise the public display of and trading in prohibited Nazi symbols, such as the hakenkreuz, which most people would recognise instantly at the hooked cross symbol or what is commonly called the swastika, and the Schutzstaffel hate symbol, which is the Nazi double-sig rune or SS bolt. These symbols are widely recognised as representing hatred, violence and racism and are incompatible with modern Australia's multicultural and democratic society. We know that the use of these symbols is on the rise. We've witnessed the reports of rallies right here in Australia where these symbols are used to intimidate and recruit. Neo-Nazis and their appearance at any rally are strategic. They take any opportunity to exploit division. They try to make their antisemitism mainstream. They're always on the lookout for new opportunities for their extreme violence and hate filled division. The public display offence is designed to prevent the harassment and vilification of ordinary Australians whose communities are targeted by Neo-Nazis and terrorist organisation supporters, online and in person. Their agenda represents hatred, violence and racism, all of which are incompatible with Australia's multicultural and democratic society. These offences will carry a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment.

The trading offence targets commercial profiting, including selling, renting or leasing paraphernalia containing the prohibited Nazi insignia. The offences will not capture legitimate uses of these symbols that are not intended to advocate hatred or incite discrimination, hostility or violence. These would include where a symbol is publicly displayed for a genuine religious, academic, educational, artistic or scientific purpose. For example, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Romper Stomper or The Producers won't have to be edited to remove these symbols, as they're framed in an artistic setting on the silver screen, and the films that I mentioned and others that include Nazis are by no means being used to promote the ideologies mentioned in them. And don't get me started on Hogan's Heroes. Obviously, importantly, the use of the sacred swastika in connection with the Buddhist, Hindu or Jain religious observances will not be captured by these offences. The Albanese government acknowledges the continued importance of the sacred swastika as an ancient symbol that has immense significance to Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and other faith communities. It is important to remember that these symbols predate the modern Nazi versions by many, many centuries. This bill will protect the use of the sacred swastika, ensuring that those communities can continue to practice their religions safely in Australia.

The legislation is focused on symbols associated with recruitment activities of violent extremist groups that have the effect of harassing or vilifying targeted groups. Obviously, some of these groups are a bit of a joke, like Hogan'sHeroes, but, as we know, some are seriously dangerous. There are some clusters of hate that will inflict damage on Australian society, so we must be careful. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. The government amendments will also criminalise performing the Nazi salute in a public place, to address the significant harm that is caused to the Australian community by this behaviour. It is a gesture designed to intimidate and divide. As we know, the Nazi salute is used to harass, vilify and instil fear in members of the Australian community, particularly the Jewish community but also others that were targeted by the Nazis. This new measure is intended to reduce the prevalence of the Nazi salute in public places, protect individuals from harm and protect the wider community from distress caused by this widely recognised gesture.

Schedule 2 of the bill will also criminalise the use of a carriage service to deal with violent extremist material, including instructional terrorist material. This will create new offences for using a carriage service for violent extremist material and possessing or controlling violent extremist material obtained or accessed using a carriage service. A carriage service would include a range of platforms, such as web pages, social media applications, email, chat forums and text messages—all by downloading violent extremist material from the internet onto a digital storage device. Criminalising the use of a carriage service for violent extremist material will allow law enforcement to take action against persons who are exploiting the internet to recruit, spread propaganda and incite violence, particularly—and this is the scary thing—by those that target young people. Australia and New Zealand have felt the violent effects of Australians that have been radicalised online. There were the mass shootings at the Christchurch mosque, where nearly 50 of our neighbours across the ditch were killed by an Australian, and, more recently, the Wieambilla shootings on the Darling Downs, where two police officers and an innocent neighbour going to help out—doing that great Australian thing of helping out your neighbours—were murdered by Australians who'd been radicalised online. Violent extremist material would include material that describes, depicts, provides instruction on, supports or facilitates serious violence for the purpose of advancing an ideology and coercing or intimidating the government or the public. These offences could be committed using the same range of platforms I mentioned before. These offences would be punishable by up to five years imprisonment.

This would also facilitate law enforcement intervention at an earlier stage in an individual's progress towards radicalisation. Obviously, we want these people diverted to become sensible members of Australian society, where they pay their taxes and make a contribution, rather than start to hate their neighbours. It would give law enforcement a greater opportunity for rehabilitation and the disruption of violent extremist networks. It would also complement the existing framework for regulating online service providers, including in relation to the offences for posting abhorrent violent material, and the eSafety Commissioner's powers to require providers to remove or cease hosting certain content.

Schedule 2 sets out a range of defences, covering circumstances such as where violent extremist material was accessed or transmitted for law enforcement purposes or as part of legitimate reporting of the news. Again, as with the use of the swastika in movies and in art, it's important that there's room for reporting to continue on people using these symbols for no good.

Schedule 3 of the bill expands the 'advocating terrorism' offence in section 80.2C of the Criminal Code to include providing instruction on the doing of a terrorist act, and praising the doing of a terrorist act where there is a substantial risk that the praise will lead another person to engage in a terrorist act. This would address increasing concerns about the promotion and idolisation of extremist views as a form of radicalisation—something that we've heard from the heads of our police forces and our security forces. This is particularly concerning where young people are being radicalised online. That is the most dangerous area, because someone could be being radicalised in the house next door. That's why we need our authorities to have these extra powers.

The promotion and idealisation of extremist views is of increasing concern, particularly—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:27 to 11:38

The promotion and idealisation of extremist views is of increasing concern, particularly with respect to young people becoming radicalised online. Glorifying terrorists or terrorist acts can incite others to imitate or seek to engage in similar behaviour and then further their radicalisation. The offence already covers counselling, promoting, encouraging or urging the doing of a terrorist act. Instructing on and praising the doing of a terrorist act should be covered by the offence, as this conduct supports another person to engage in terrorism and therefore amounts to advocacy.

Recognising that advocating terrorism is a serious international act that can incite violence against innocent Australians, schedule 3 of the bill would increase the maximum penalty for this offence from five to seven years imprisonment, which is quite significant. This would ensure the penalty more appropriately accounts for the potential severity of offending and better aligns with the penalties for similar offences in the Criminal Code.

Schedule 4 of the bill removes sunsetting requirements from regulations listing organisations as terrorist organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code. Today's listings cease to have effect after a period of three years and therefore must be remade for an organisation to remain proscribed or banned. The removal of sunsetting requirements from terrorist listing regulations will help align the framework with the enduring nature of terrorist organisations and their operations. For example, of the 29 organisations currently listed, the considerable majority have been relisted multiple times, some as many as eight. While there are existing strong safeguards to ensure that any listing of an organisation is appropriate, and ceases should the organisation no longer meet the threshold, this bill will enhance these safeguards.

The AFP minister currently has a legal obligation to delist an organisation if they're no longer satisfied that the legislative threshold for proscribing has been met. In certain circumstances there can be a transition. We all know of that 'terrorist' called Nelson Mandela and his transition from being incarcerated to becoming president of his nation, so obviously ministers would need to consider the facts of the case. Any individual or organisation can apply to the AFP minister requesting that an organisation be delisted. This provision provides an ongoing opportunity for anyone to bring information to the AFP minister's attention, thus engaging the AFP minister's obligation to delist the organisation if satisfied that the threshold is no longer being met.

In addition, the mandate of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security will be expanded to allow the committee to conduct own-motion reviews at any time into whether a listed organisation continues to meet the legislative threshold—parliament supporting the work of the executive is something I'm particularly supportive of—thus providing an independent review process to ensure that any listings remain appropriate. It will also provide that terrorist organisation listings do not lapse after three years but continue unless proactively removed from the list by the AFP minister. We know these groups don't have three-year ideological reviews, so why would they be automatically removed after three years? This will align the terrorist organisation listing framework with the current threat picture of stable and enduring terrorist organisations that pose an ongoing threat to our security, whilst also ensuring the appropriate safeguards are in place.

The Attorney-General and his office, as well as the department, must be applauded for their thoroughness and for the time and effort that has gone into drafting this important bill. They consulted widely with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. States and territories were also consulted on the proposed measures through the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee's legal issues working group, and the majority of states and territories support the proposed amendments. The government also spoke with key community organisations in relation to the prohibited symbols measures back in April of this year, including the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Hindu Council of Australia and representatives of the Buddhist community, and they were supportive of the proposed approach.

There is no place for these hate symbols in Australian society in 2023. This is the right time to put a ban on these symbols of hate and division and to make sure that no-one will be allowed to glorify or profit from acts and symbols which celebrate the Nazis and their evil ideology. I commend the legislation to the House.

I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. At the outset, this legislation refers to prohibited hate symbols. I thought it helpful to first consider the importance of symbols in our community and to a society overall. Symbols are used to define groups. Symbols are a unifier; they convey immediately recognisable meanings that are shared by societies. Symbols create and communicate the values and traditions of a country, a group, a club and, indeed, a world. Think of some of our most iconic Australian symbols: our coat of arms; our Australian flag; the Southern Cross; the celebratory green and gold of our national sporting teams; the black, red and yellow of the Aboriginal flag; the baggy green of our Australian cricketers; a sprig of wattle; and the slouch hat of the Australian digger. These are all symbols that are very important to Australians and reflect our way of life. They are also immediately recognisable and immediately bring to mind a particular value unique to Australia.

Then we have internationally recognised symbols: the peace sign, the red cross, yin and yang and the love heart—again, all instantly recognised and instantly bringing about a certain feeling when those symbols are seen. However, in 2023, just as we have some powerfully beautiful symbols, world history and culture have also delivered some symbols that have generated—and continue to generate—hatred, violence and genocide. I'm referring particularly to Nazi symbols. In the 1930s in Germany, these symbols provided a rallying cry which united and incited ordinary people to support wholesale antisemitism. Ultimately, these symbols assisted to establish a regime that murdered six million Jewish people.

In the modern era, terrorists and extremist groups use hate symbols to generate, support, incite and commit terrible acts of violence. In our modern era, a lot of the transmission of these symbols is done through the internet and is radicalising our younger people. As a result of this, several states and territories—most, in fact—throughout Australia have introduced legislation, and private bills have also been introduced at the Commonwealth level to try to counter this proliferation of the communication of hate symbols.

The purpose of the bill, broadly, is to amend the Commonwealth criminal laws to introduce new offences relating to extremist or terrorist behaviour and to amend some existing laws relating to that behaviour. Its main purpose is to introduce offences relating to the displaying or trading of hate symbols such as Nazi symbols and the Islamic State flag. This follows the introduction and discussion of similar offences throughout Australia. I note there's been very widespread consultation on this bill as well.

The bill also includes amendments relating to the use of a carriage service for violent extremist material and to broaden the scope of the offence of advocating terrorism. The bill will also change the way that organisations already listed as terrorist organisations are being delisted. The bill's stated intention is to complement state laws and extend to matters where the Commonwealth has particular responsibilities, including those with respect to trade and the online environment.

It is noted that, since 2022, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT have legislated offences for publicly displaying Nazi symbols, while Queensland and South Australia have similar bills before their parliaments. Western Australia has similarly announced an intention to introduce such legislation. In particular, I commend the work that has been done in this place and by my friend the member for Berowra, who, in May of this year, introduced a bill that similarly sought to prohibit and criminalise the public display of Nazi symbols. This also included the making of the Nazi salute. I note that that provision has not made its way into this bill, but it has been indicated that using the Nazi salute will remain in the jurisdiction of the state and territory police services. It's also heartening to see that there have been several other countries internationally that have brought in similar legislation, including Germany, France and Austria.

I'll get to the particulars of the legislation. There are four schedules that will seek to amend the existing Commonwealth Criminal Code. First, and most importantly, it is now a new criminal offence—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceedings suspended from 11:49 to 11:59

Schedule 1 establishes a new criminal offence for the public display of prohibited Nazi and Islamic State symbols. It also makes it an offence to trade in goods that bear a prohibited Nazi or Islamic State symbol.

Schedule 2 establishes a new criminal offence for using a carriage service for violent extremist material and possessing or controlling violent extremist material obtained or accessed during a carriage service. As I said earlier, in these days when we are unfortunately seeing through the internet a lot of radicalisation of younger people, this is a particularly important new offence and a particularly important new power that will be given to our Commonwealth law enforcement officers.

Schedule 3 expands the existing offence of 'advocating terrorism' to include instructing on the doing of a terrorist act and praising the doing of a terrorist act in specified circumstances. It also, importantly, increases the maximum penalty for the 'advocating terrorism' offence from five to seven years imprisonment.

The fourth schedule removes the sunsetting requirement for instruments which list terrorist organisations. That's particularly important because at the moment we have a situation where terrorist organisations are listed but are then automatically taken off that list after a three-year period. This provision requires the minister responsible for the AFP to actually take steps to remove an organisation from the terrorist organisation list as soon as practicable in circumstances only where the minister has formed the view that an organisation no longer meets the terrorist-listing threshold. Again, that is another important safeguard that has been put into this legislation.

The bill does contain carve-outs. It contains broad exemptions for the display of a prohibited symbol where there is a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose and the display is not contrary to the public interest. This is important, particularly with regard to our education establishments.

The bill, overall, sends a very strong signal to extremists and terrorist groups that Australia is strong and resolute in stamping out hate symbols and, by extension, extremist behaviour and terrorist groups, including the behaviour which those groups seek to incite. The bill will not in any way impede Australians' freedom of religion and freedom of worship, and nor should it.

We live in the most successful multicultural country in the world. Thousands and thousands of people arrive in Australia every year to enjoy the freedoms and the peace that Australia offers. Many of these people have fled from countries where extremists and terrorist groups proliferate, often largely unchecked. This is not the sort of life that we want here in Australia. That is why this is a very good bill. It is sending a message that Australians want to maintain their existing way of life and not the way of life of people who are conveying these symbols. The bill is a further step in safeguarding this way of life. Symbols used to incite hatred, loathing and violence are unacceptable, particularly in our country.

I commenced this speech by speaking of symbols of peace, love and those that embody the Australian spirit and way of life. It is hoped that a bill such as this, when it becomes legislation, will send the message that they are the symbols that we wish to see. Let us see more symbols like the dove of peace or our sprigs of wattle, rather than symbols that convey hatred and loathing. This bill, overall, will assist our Commonwealth law enforcement officers to deal with radicalisation and to deal with the advocacy of terrorism and incitement to violence. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill the House.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, brought by the Attorney-General into this parliament, is very important, and I thank him for introducing this bill. I also thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, including the chair, the member for Wills, and the deputy chair, the member for Fisher, for the very bipartisan recommendations that will help bolster this bill and inform us about this bill as it passes through the House. I very much appreciate the bipartisan approach.

This is about not only safety but our community, and it goes to the heart of our multicultural society. On that note, I'd also like to thank the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Hindu Council of Australia and representatives of the Australian Buddhist community for their support of this legislation and their consultation with the government. This is important as hate has no place in this country. We are a multicultural nation with shared values and ideals, which should not and must not be threatened by hateful speech, symbols or actions. My electorate of Macarthur has a wide array of people of different religions and ethnicities that live, work and study alongside each other in peace and in harmony.

Under schedule 1, the bill creates new offences for publicly displaying prohibited hate symbols such as the Nazi hakenkreuz—the hooked cross—the Nazi double-sig rune—or SS bolts—the Nazi swastika and other hate symbols. The public display offence in this bill is designed to prevent the harassment and vilification of innocent Australians whose communities are targeted by Nazi, Neo-Nazi and terrorist organisations and their supporters in person and online. Further, the trading offence would target commercial profiting, including selling, renting or leasing paraphernalia containing prohibited symbols or symbols associated with terrorist organisations. Nazi paraphernalia should only be used as a form of educating individuals on the horrors of hate and the dangers of misinformation.

It's so important that we don't let hate divide us, especially during these very challenging times. My heart goes out to the innocent men, women and children of Palestine, Israel and Ukraine and their families here in Australia who are currently suffering. In my personal experience, I recently had an experience with divisive speech when, in early October, I left a vigil service for victims of the 7 October terrorist attacks in Israel. As I got into a ride-share vehicle, the driver asked me, 'What are you doing here?' and said that all Jews should be gone from the country—at the vigil that was happening. It made for a very awkward trip, and I was glad when it was over. I can only imagine what other groups go through daily, when they see, hear and learn of similar interactions.

Regardless of whether it is antisemitism or Islamophobia, both of which are sadly on the rise across the nation, governments and politicians have a responsibility to speak out and act. Poor education and harmful, misleading information are already damaging our community, and social media is certainly a big part of that. It leads to interactions like the one I had on a more common basis, and I am worried about this. I believe it's very important that this bill be passed to protect individuals from harm and ensure our wider community is not dragged down by the distress caused by those seeking to ignite hate and increase the tension and social disharmony in our communities.

This is particularly important regarding schedule 3, 'Advocating terrorism'. Why anyone in our peaceful country would support terrorist groups, whose extremist and often violent views go against our nation's values, is beyond me. But, sadly, these individuals and groups do exist—on all sides. It's not just fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. It's far-right terrorism, like what we've seen with some of the Neo-Nazi groups on the rise not just in Australia but across the world. Online forums and websites are an easy way for these groups to radicalise vulnerable individuals, and we have certainly seen that in my electorate.

In October this year, the Australian Federal Police issued an urgent warning to parents and guardians over increasing evidence of extremist groups recruiting or seeking to radicalise young Australians via video and online gaming. This is occurring around the world, with the United Kingdom's Ministry of Justice finding that, of prisoners who were jailed for terrorism related offences, almost 50 per cent of them were either wholly or partly radicalised online. This statistic jumped substantially, from 2015, to 92 per cent by the end of the 2019-2021 period.

At home, the AFP has reported shocking increases in the number of far-right terrorism related investigations. These increased seven fold from 2020 to 2022. This is concerning. Far-right terrorist groups are growing their online and videogame presence, meaning that more and more vulnerable Australians are falling for their extremist views. I am worried for future generations, I'm worried for my grandchildren and the generations that will follow, and I'm worried about the available avenues through which radical extremists views can be broadcast to them. I'd like to thank the Minister for Communications for her efforts to curb the rise of hateful rhetoric on social media platforms, particularly the hateful images, speech and, worryingly, use of artificial intelligence. We've seen over recent years, particularly during the rise of ISIS, the power of online platforms to radicalise individuals in Australia and in their communities and to advocate further violent acts. We've seen people travelling abroad, even from my electorate, to fight for extremist groups in other countries.

On the topic of ISIS and other recognised terrorist organisations, schedule 4 of the bill removes sunset requirements from regulations that list terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, and that's a good thing. At present, every three weeks these organisations, of which there are currently 29 listed, must be either removed from the list or relisted, with the majority being relisted multiple times. We need to really stop that having to happen. Once a terrorist group, always a terrorist group, in my view. Some terrorist organisations have been relisted as many as eight times. This change will ensure that no terrorist organisation can slip through the cracks of the previous sunset clause and that, once a terrorist organisation is listed, the only way it can come off is when its activities and operations stop. This is a serious issue that this bill takes very seriously indeed, and the bill helps strengthen the safeguards to protect all Australians. It would be a shame and a disservice if this bill doesn't get through parliament, especially at a time when we need to bring people together and bring down those who seek to harm and divide our communities.

As a paediatrician in my community, I ask many questions of people when I see them and their children as patients. The one question I never ask is about their religion, because it isn't important. In Australia we have been so lucky to live in a society for many decades that is peaceful, that accepts people at face value, that does not discriminate and that has provided nurturing communities for people from all around the world of many different backgrounds. In my childhood, as a Jew I went to a Christian school, and I had many friends at school from a whole range of religions. My very good friend Kadeem is Muslim. I had Buddhist friends, I had Christian friends and I grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney. And that should continue. We must ensure that our society works in a way that welcomes people, allows them to practise their religion and allows them to live their family life in the way that they want without harming others. In the last few weeks I have seen things in Australia that I never thought I would ever see. There has been a rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia that affects our children. That has an ongoing risk for our society, and we must be very vigilant about it.

This parliament is becoming more diverse, and that's been a very, very good thing. But part of the work of our parliament in our communities is to make sure that our society remains harmonious and that we fight against social disharmony. We've seen demonstrations and acts around the country, particularly in our major capital cities, that frighten me greatly. I am an eighth- or ninth-generation Australian. There have been Jewish people in Australia since the days of the first white settlements. I don't have a family history of people who fled the Holocaust during the Second World War to come to Australia. My family have been here for many, many generations. To think that we are seeing actions in Sydney that seek to divide us based on our religion—it is just absolutely shameful. I think that state governments in particular have been very strong in acting against this, but there are always—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12 : 15 to 12 : 25

If I can summarise what is happening now, we live in a world that has incredible stresses put upon it, and we've seen that in other countries. But in Australia we are so lucky to have a multicultural society that actually works, and it works for a reason. It works because our government and successive governments over many generations—Liberal, Labor, National—have put in the effort to make sure our society works. We have multiculturalism enriching our lives and enriching our society, but there are stresses. We've seen stresses from the pandemic. We've seen economic stresses around the world that are having their effect on Australia. We are seeing increasing division in terms of wealth and increasing division in things like housing. But we maintain a stable community that is multicultural, and that has huge benefits for our children and our future generations. It is worth protecting, and this bill will help protect that society.

I want the world that my grandchildren grow up in to be as successful as the world that I grew up in. That means we have to work hard to stop these messages of hate damaging our society. This bill will help with that, and that's why I'm very proud to support it. We need to do more to tackle extremist views. The material, the propaganda, that appears on every corner in many different ways is affecting our children and affecting our society, and we must look at ways to prevent it. This bill is a step in the right direction.

I'm very grateful for everyone who has already spoken on the bill, on both sides of the parliament, and I thank them for their bipartisan support. I know that we are united in this parliament in believing that we have a society that is worth protecting, and this bill will go a long way to helping with that. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to support the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, particularly in the current circumstances, and the provision to prohibit the display of some of the most confronting symbols of antisemitism—the Nazi swastika and what is known as the SS bolts.

None of us will forget Adolf Hitler's deliberate, coldly calculated and organised mass murder of six million European Jews, as well as five million prisoners of war and other victims, or the full horror of the atrocities committed against the Jewish people, in what was clearly a state sponsored persecution—a very deliberate race based ideology—of a magnitude that horrified and appalled all decent people. When we saw the full evidence of the Holocaust, particularly from the concentration camps like Dachau, we saw evil, terror and inhumanity at their very worst. Like everyone who's visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, I was profoundly affected and absolutely sickened by what the Jewish people endured.

One million Australians served in World War II, and 39,600 Australians in our defence forces paid the ultimate sacrifice. They did not come home. My mother was a World War II widow. Jack, her beloved husband and father of my two sisters, did not come home. That's the price that we pay for supporting them, as we did in World War II. I remember my mother's journal, in which she said that she would have walked off the end of the Bunbury jetty if it hadn't been for her two little girls, who depended on her to bring them up. She also said that Jack would have wanted her to bring up their daughters the best way she could in those postwar circumstances. So not only did my sisters not remember or get to know their dad but my mother had to live with the profound loss and grief without even the finality and closure of a funeral, like many of those who lost their loved ones. It took many years, until she was over 70, for her to finally meet the 2/28th soldier who shared Jack's last hours.

So my family, like so many others, has been directly impacted by the march of Nazi ideology that led to World War II. As we know, the Nazi movement started many, many years before that and directly involved the Nazi youth movement. By 1933 there were over 50,000 members of the Hitler Youth movement, and by the end of that same year there were more than two million. That was done with the goal of creating obedient and fanatical soldiers. This was one of the most chilling effects of the Nazis—indoctrinating children into an extremist ideology.

I'm very concerned about the serious and growing increase in antisemitism in Australia. There's been a 482 per cent increase in the past seven weeks alone. It is the worst since World War II, and it is something I thought we would never see in Australia. Like so many others, I was profoundly hurt that Jewish families were unable to gather at the Opera House following the horrific attacks, killings and capture of hostages in Israel on 7 October. There were absolutely disgusting chants of 'gas the Jews' that invoked the Holocaust in support of Hamas. Hamas is a listed terrorist entity in Australia. The antisemitism that followed and the extreme vulnerability, fear and targeting of Jewish families are something that I'm absolutely ashamed of in this country. Hate has no place here.

We've also seen two students targeted by antisemitic activities on university campuses. I see this as profoundly disturbing. It's an absolute disgrace. Shame on these universities that should be the bastions of protecting Australia's beliefs and rights. As we know and value in this country, freedom of speech is a critical part of our democracy, as is peaceful protest, where a diversity of views can be shared in that way. However, there are laws in this country against threatening and inciting violence. In this bill we see further measures to support this approach, especially with regard to those that advocate terrorism.

As I said before, I'm really seriously concerned about students being used as political pawns and activists, and we've seen a real rise in that recently. It's a form of indoctrination that concerns me. We've seen a lot of very pro-Palestinian school protests and we've seen our students exposed to antisemitic behaviour, hateful signs and chants of 'from the river to the sea', which actually calls for the destruction of Israel. That's what it does and that's what it says. I do not want to see any condoning of this type of antisemitic behaviour. There are measures within this bill to cover radicalisation, and I am very pleased to see this.

I want to warn parents to be aware of what's going on online. Members of the House know that I've spent a lot of time doing online safety presentations in schools. At the height of what was happening in Syria, ISIS actually approached a young student and tried to draft him. They groom these young people online in various ways. They're very clever at it. They had actually profiled him, amongst others, in Australia—he wasn't the only one that they were profiling in Australia—with the direct intention of radicalising him and then encouraging him to join them in Syria. This is something that I just want to warn all parents about while I'm speaking today. With what we've seen in our universities and schools and at some of the rallies we've seen, can I encourage parents to talk to their children and to be aware of what they're actually accessing and being exposed to, whether that's online or in person.

It is really important in this country that we foster the wonderful society that we enjoyed ourselves as we grew up. This is the Australia that we want our children and our grandchildren to be able to enjoy. Every time I go to a citizenship ceremony and I hear the words that are spoken—the freedoms and rights that people come to this country for and are so proud to say—these are the freedoms and rights that we in this place should be very actively protecting. We should be making sure that those freedoms and rights are what we are prepared as part of our democracy to fight for.

My mother's husband and all the others who died in conflicts while serving in our Australian Defence Force did so to protect those rights and our democracy. These are things that have to be fought for and protected, and they did so, with their lives. They did it with their lives. I do not want to see that sacrifice in any way compromised by what is happening not just now but at any time in the future in Australia. Every one of those lives was precious, as was that of my mother's husband. But I suspect that, if he was alive today, he and those 36,000—nearly 37,000—who lost their lives in World War II would be absolutely disgusted and appalled at what's going on in Australia at this moment and at what we are seeing. They knew what gave rise to World War II.

I want to encourage all of us to do everything we can to protect the rights and freedoms that we have fought for and protected over so many years and that our Australian Defence Force members fought for and died for. For those of us in this place who value freedom of speech, freedom of religion and our democratic rights, we should be doing everything we can to preserve and protect them so that future generations get to live the way that we did and the way that we want to in the future.

Given what's happening online, I want to say to parents: please do not take this lightly; please be aware that they're very, very good at this online grooming, as it's called. This young man who was groomed came from a single-parent family. He was looking, perhaps, for an experience that he wasn't having. He was looking for all sorts of excitement. He was promised all sorts of experiences that he had never had, and that caused incredible problems between him and his mother and his family. I had to seek help from our federal antiterrorism organisations and bodies to help with that. Once wasn't enough. They targeted him once, but because they had profiled him they kept at it until all of his sites and all of his contacts were shut down. You can imagine what that did to that young man.

I want to encourage parents to be vigilant, to look after your children and to love them. Encourage them to value the quality of life that they enjoy in Australia and the rights and democracy that we enjoy here.

Nazism is a curse upon humanity. It has few parallels in human history for unadulterated evil. History is littered with examples of atrocity and genocide, but Nazism took it to another level. It industrialised and it bureaucratised evil. In less than 10 years Nazism transformed cosmopolitan, modern, democratic and industrially advanced nations into hell on earth—and it didn't happen all of a sudden.

The rise of Nazism happened slowly. Laughed off at first as extremist kooks, they started winning seats by offering simple slogans to complex problems. In economically challenged times the Nazis became the biggest party in the Reichstag, and Hitler became Chancellor. It's an uncomfortable reality that the Nazis were elected to power by the German people. They didn't seize control. It was handed to them. They had the support at home and abroad of powerful industrialists, energised by the Nazi's anti-unionism and untroubled by their virulent antisemitism. I revisit all this not to provide a nostalgic high-school essay on the rise of Nazism but to note that the conditions that gave rise to Nazism exist today, that we can see the same things happening right now and that the same warning signs are before us.

The extreme right is on the march across Europe. It has moderated its language and its dress code, but that's window-dressing. The skinheads have grown their hair and swapped out their brown shirts for red polos, and they've swapped their lace-up boots for dress shoes. But, underneath the wrapping, they are the same thugs with the same warped agenda: demonising minorities—whether it's Jews, Muslims, gays or trans people, it does not matter—as long as they're something other than Aryan; demonising trade unions and the ability of workers to advance their interests in the workplace; and demonising higher education by labelling the educated as elite, woke or other pejoratives and lauding ignorance and apathy. ASIO is onto this. I am—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12 : 40 to 16 : 00

ASIO is all over the rise of the extreme right. I'm pleased to say that they are paying particular attention to this scourge. Indeed, in 2020 the director-general of ASIO, Mike Burgess, made a number of statements, saying that right-wing extremism was manifesting in small cells of adherence and they were gathering to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons and disseminate hateful ideology. He said the threat of right-wing extremism was real and growing and that the number of overall terrorism leads under investigation had doubled in the past year. In February 2022 Mike Burgess went on to talk about—quite troublingly, I must say—the rise in the number of children being motivated to join right-wing extremist groups. I'll get to why this is relevant to the bill a bit later. There are direct parallels with what we're talking about in the bill and what I'm talking about now. He said:

Children as young as 13 are now embracing extremism, and this is happening with religiously motivated violent extremism and ideologically motivated violent extremism.

…   …   …

A few years ago, minors represented around two to three per cent of our new counter-terrorism investigations. In the last year, though, the figure's been closer to fifteen per cent.

That's an extraordinary rise in very young people being attracted to right-wing extremism. I quote him again:

Where once minors tended to be on the fringe of extremist groups, we are now seeing teenagers in leadership positions, directing adults, and willing to take violent action themselves.

…   …   …

We have seen cases involving young, radicalised violent extremists systematically targeting vulnerable associates who were lonely or going through tough times.

We know that young people are approached through social media and groomed, and key to that is the symbology. It's the Nazi symbol, the SS lightning bolts—that's all part of the ideology and part of the attraction of getting involved. By criminalising this, we are sending a message that these are criminal endeavours and they are antithetical to Australian values, Australian patriotism and Australian citizenship. If you're part of this milieu of right-wing extremism, you are counter to what it means to be Australian.

I'd like to speak to some particular elements of the bill. Schedule 1 enables the prohibition of specific symbols associated with hate and extremism. It introduces new offences into the Criminal Code for the public display and trading of goods and prohibited Nazi symbols, including the Nazi hakenkreuz, double-sig rune and SS lightning bolts, and symbols associated with prescribed terrorist associations. It sends a clear message that our society will not tolerate these ideologies of hatred, violence and racism. It's always a balance—the extent of a tolerant society tolerating the intolerant within its midst. It's an ongoing debate and, indeed, a paradox. By tolerating the intolerant, we provide them with the tools to eliminate the tolerant and the practice of tolerance itself. We, in effect, sow the seeds of our own destruction by overly allowing the intolerant to be intolerant. Just as a peaceful society must maintain strong defences and expend resources on lethal capability that all of us hope never has to be spent, so must civil society retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

The symbols that the bill relate to have long been associated with extremist ideologies that seek to divide and cause harm. Banning these symbols helps prevent their use to advocate hate and sow division in what has been a remarkably successful multicultural Australia, where ethnic and religious differences are not only tolerated but respected and valued as contributing to a richer hole. To support effective enforcement, the bill grants police officers the power to direct individuals to remove prohibited symbols from public display, with penalties for noncompliance. It is important to note that these offences do not apply in legitimate circumstances that are not contrary to the public interest. The legislation recognises the sacred swastika's religious significance in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and ensures that its use for genuine religious purposes is not restricted. Similarly, academic, educational, artistic, literary, scientific and journalistic uses are exempted.

Schedule 2 of this bill addresses the use of carriage services for disseminating violent extremist material. It introduces offences for using a carriage service to distribute such material and possessing or controlling it. Examples of violent extremist material include instructional terrorist content and recruitment materials produced by terrorist organisations. The internet and other communication platforms have, regrettably, become conduits for the spread of extremist views and propaganda. By criminalising the dissemination and possession of this material, we are effectively targeting the spread of extremist views and the promotion of violence. Appropriate defences are included in the legislation, ensuring that conduct involving violent extremist material necessary to enforce or monitor compliance with the law is not unfairly penalised. This schedule fills a gap in the existing framework, enabling the criminalisation of conduct related to violent extremist material that may not be directly linked to a specific terrorist act. It is a crucial step in tackling the root causes of extremism and preventing the radicalisation of vulnerable individuals, including the young and, indeed, the very young.

Schedule 3 focuses on the offence of advocating terrorism. It seeks to increase the maximum penalty for this offence from five to seven years, recognising the serious nature of advocating terrorism and the potential for inciting violence against innocent Australians. This offence is expanded to include instructing on the doing of a terrorist act and praising of the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a substantial risk of inciting others to commit similar acts. This acknowledges the influence of glorifying terrorists and their actions in inspiring others to engage in acts of violence. I'm sure all in this chamber share my horror at the way the Christchurch terrorist, the murderer, has been glorified by some right-wing extremists. The increased penalty and expanded definition serve as a deterrent against the dissemination of extremist ideologies and reinforces our commitment to protecting the safety and security of the nation. It also ensures a stop to the glorification of terrorists and terrorist acts, and it can be influential in inspiring others to engage in similar behaviour.

Finally, schedule 4 addresses the regulations pertaining to the listing of terrorist organisations. The removal of the automatic sunset period for terrorist organisation listings reflects the enduring nature of these organisations and the ongoing threat they pose to national security. By ensuring that the regulations proscribe terrorist organisations indefinitely, we provide a robust framework to combat their activities. The inclusion of an obligation for the minister to consider applications for the delisting of a terrorist organisation and the expanded mandate of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for continuous oversight further enhances transparency and accountability in the listing process.

It's important to note that it is possible to delist a proscribed terrorist organisation. With one government's proscribed terrorist organisation, a government of the future may have a very different view about that organisation. For example, in my own lifetime I remember that former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher would refer to the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela as terrorists, and for many years they were treated as such. Of course, we now have very different views of that organisation and certainly of the late, magnificent Nelson Mandela.

I know that my own constituents will welcome the passage of this bill. They stand firmly against hate and the use of symbols to spread division in our community. Residents in the town of Perth, in the north of my electorate, have not forgotten the hurt and offence that was caused when a house in the town brazenly displayed the Nazi hakenkreuz in 2020, and there was very little the authorities could do. At the time, the hakenkreuz was spray-painted and boldly displayed across a residential house, leading many residents to contact the local media and my office in disgust and disappointment. Residents were despondent as authorities seemed unable to adequately respond to the incident and order the removal of the offending material from display. More recently, Transgender Day of Remembrance flags were vandalised in Hobart in 2021, and hakenkreuz graffiti and Neo-Nazi stickers were left near the synagogue in Launceston, with a Tasmanian far-right group posting the footage online.

This bill will give the power that is lacking and ensure that incidents like these cannot happen again and that, if they do happen again, there will be consequences for them and they will be quickly responded to. The power granted to police officers to direct the removal of prohibited symbols from public display is an essential tool in enforcing this provision. It enables swift action to be taken when symbols of hatred are prominently displayed and ensures the harm caused by such symbols is mitigated. It's important to note that this power will be exercised responsibly and with appropriate safeguards to prevent any potential misuse or infringement on an individual's rights. The intention is to strike that really crucial balance between protecting freedom of expression and safeguarding the wellbeing of our society. Sadly, our communities are still being rocked by growing white supremacist and antisemitic behaviours. As recently as last month, symbols and messages of hate cropped up in the town of Longford, with public signs and infrastructure defaced with the Nazi hakenkreuz and antisemitic and white supremacist messaging. As the federal member, I deplore this graffiti and these shocking examples of division. I absolutely reject it.

In a time of rising hate, it is important we fight back against such acts with legislation such as the bill before the House. We must never sit idle and accept, through complicity, hatred and offence of this type. I want to emphasise that this legislation has been carefully crafted after extensive consultation with law enforcement agencies and communities affected by hatred and extremism, and of course it will be important to work with state and territory authorities and police authorities to ensure that the measures in this bill can take full effect. We're striking that right balance between protecting freedom of expression and keeping the community safe. In a tolerant society, we cannot tolerate those who seek to sow hatred and cause violence in our community.

None of the 250,000 Jewish Australians were untouched by the Holocaust. Nearly every family has parents or grandparents who are survivors, whose friends or relatives were murdered in German concentration camps. For those families, the collective grief and trauma of the Holocaust—the Shoah, the catastrophe—has never gone away. In the seven long weeks since the incomprehensible terrorist attacks of 7 October, the Jewish diaspora in Australia has been forced to reckon with that trauma again. For many in Jewish congregations across the country, including in my electorate, the events of 7 October and the disturbing, heartbreaking rise in antisemitism in this country since that time have caused acute concern regarding their own safety and that of their family members.

7 October was not the start of antisemitism in Australia. For as long as there have been Jewish Australians, there has been an undercurrent of antisemitism in this country. In recent years, that undercurrent has grown significantly. According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, during the 12 months to September 2022, 478 antisemitic incidents were logged by the volunteer community security groups, official Jewish state bodies and ECAJ itself. That is an increase of 6.9 per cent on the year prior. Those reports have increased significantly in recent decades. What those reports don't detail is the effect of those acts of antisemitism on Jewish Australians. They don't illustrate how Jewish students in Bondi felt in 2014 when their school bus was boarded by teenagers shouting horrendous antisemitic slurs while performing the Nazi salute or more recently how students in Melbourne at Brighton Secondary College felt when they were subjected to antisemitic bullying.

They don't capture how those attending their Shabbat service at the Central Shule on 10 November in Melbourne felt when they had to be evacuated due to pro-Palestinian protests, how shopholders feel when they arrive at their businesses to find Magen David stickers on their windows or how Jewish adults feel when they see a Nazi sympathiser giving the Nazi salute, the sieg heil, as he leaves court and Neo-Nazis doing the same on the steps of the Victorian parliament. They also don't capture how Jewish children from Melbourne feel when they're told not to wear their kippahs or their school uniforms on the streets of our city or how a Jewish businessowner in my electorate felt earlier this year when he received a flyer in the mail which was filled with Nazi slogans and antisemitic abuse targeting me, targeting the member for Goldstein and, most disturbingly of all, targeting the immediate former member for Kooyong.

These weren't just discriminatory actions. They were visceral reminders of the darkest period in modern history. Those things don't just make Jewish people feel unwelcome. They make them feel unsafe. They inflame a trauma which touches every member of the small, tight-knit Australian Jewish community. We must do more to educate the community about the Holocaust and about antisemitism. I strongly commend the actions of the former member for Kooyong Josh Frydenberg for his commitment to the establishment of Holocaust museums in every state and territory in this country. I applaud the ECAJ for collecting detailed data on antisemitism in Australia. Unfortunately, we can expect its job to be busier and those returns to be more disturbing in the years to come. Peter Wertheim, the body's co-chief executive, has said that the council has recorded a 482 per cent rise in antisemitic incidents since the 7 October attacks. This should inspire all of us in parliament to act immediately and forcefully, as we will this week with this legislation.

All acts of discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity are disgraceful. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 both bear testament to this. Governments have a unique responsibility to set the tone, the laws and the expectations around social cohesion in this country. This includes taking very seriously our responsibility to balance the right to free expression with the right to be free from discrimination. This bill strikes that balance well. The bill upholds Australia's responsibility to take positive action to eradicate the incitement of racial discrimination, as found in article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as our responsibility to outlaw the vilification of persons on national, racial or religious grounds.

The counterterrorism legislation amendment bill 2023 amends the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to establish criminal offences for the public display of prohibited Nazi and Islamic State symbols, for the trading of goods that bear a prohibited Nazi or Islamic State symbol, for the use of a carriage service for violent extremist material and for possessing or controlling violent extremist material obtained or accessed using a carriage service.

The bill also expands the offence of advocating terrorism to include instructing on performance of a terrorist act and praising the doing of a terrorist act in specified circumstances. It increases the maximum penalty for the offence of advocating terrorism from five to seven years.

The ban on displaying or trading Nazi symbols is most pressing, given the rise of antisemitism over the last seven weeks. This bill prohibits a person from knowingly—and without reasonable excuse—displaying a Nazi symbol. These symbols include the hakenkreuz and the Nazi double-sig rune, or SS bolts, or images which closely resemble those symbols. Importantly, the sacred swastika used in the Buddhist, Hindu and Jain religious observances is exempt. There are also exemptions where a symbol is used or displayed for genuine religious worship or for academic, artistic or scientific purposes.

The bill is not exhaustive. It does not stipulate bans on other Nazi symbols, and concerns regarding this fact have been expressed by Jewish community leaders. This will require close monitoring and regular review, and we may need to extend the breadth of this legislation.

The government has now also proposed an amendment that will see the display of the Nazi salute criminalised. That salute has, unfortunately, been given a second lease on life in recent years by Neo-Nazi hate groups such as the National Socialist Network and the Antipodean Resistance. These far-right extremist organisations have grown bolder in recent years, emerging from the shadows to attempt recruitment drives, perform Nazi salutes at rallies, and most recently ambush hikers outside Melbourne in 2021.

In his 2023 annual threat assessment address, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation director-general, Mike Burgess, warned us that ideologically motivated violent extremism accounts for about 30 per cent of the agency's priority case load. In a submission to a Senate inquiry earlier this year, Mr Burgess wrote of the proposal to criminalise the Nazi salute. He said:

Extremist insignia is an effective propaganda tool because they are easy to remember and understand. They also can transcend language, cultural and ethnic divides; creating, distributing and understanding them is not limited to a select few or one cultural or language group …

I note that this bill has reached its final form, following a rare partisan split on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The government initially intended to only criminalise Nazi hate symbols, not the Nazi salute. The coalition disagreed, urging for the salute to be covered as well. I agree with them that it is appropriate, given the recent sharp increase in antisemitism, for the government to have reviewed and revised its position. I commend it for taking a hard line against Nazi salutes. We should always aspire to bipartisanship on matters of social justice and on the protection of religious and individual rights.

In passing this bill, parliament will be playing one of its most vital roles. It will be working to maintain social cohesion in this country. We must seek to unite our communities by supporting all faith, racial and ethnic groups in this multicultural mosaic of a country—to show all of them, as best we can, our support, our care, our respect, and our love, and to tell all Jewish Australians and Muslim Australians, as the Middle East conflict continues, that they matter, that they are valued and that their presence enriches our culture and makes us better.

There are some lines which must not be crossed. The use of Nazi symbolism is one. Nazi ideology and symbolism are unacceptable and intolerable. The hate that they represent must be rejected today and tomorrow. The vilification of persons on national, racial or religious grounds goes against all of the precepts of what we aspire to as Australians. So I support this bill, and I commend the government for bringing it to the House.

It cannot be emphasised enough, the importance of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The need for this bill is evident after the outrageous clash between Neo-Nazi and antifascist groups in Melbourne, including the disgusting acts of performing Nazi salutes in front of the Victorian Parliament House. Such violent and hateful actions are utterly unacceptable and have no place in our nation. I strongly condemn them in all forms.

This bill seeks to strengthen existing laws by explicitly prohibiting the display, distribution and promotion of hate symbols associated with terrorism. It aligns with Australia's commitment to inclusivity, openness and multiculturalism and sends a strong message that Australia is dedicated to combating intolerance, violence and the spread of extremist ideology within its borders. With the increasing prevalence of extremist ideologies and their distribution through online platforms, it is crucial to take proactive measures to counteract the spread of hatred and violence. The bill recognises the significance of hate symbols as a form of communication, and it aims to disrupt the networks that employ them.

We must acknowledge that hate symbols are not mere expressions of opinion; they hold the power to incite fear, division and even acts of terror. By proactively addressing this issue, we are taking a significant step towards safeguarding our communities. The public display of Nazi symbols, such as wearing swastika armbands in supermarkets or on public streets, by violent extremists with extremist ideological beliefs is dangerous. It normalises hate symbols and messages, with the intention of spreading hatred, instilling fear and harassing innocent individuals. The impact of such hateful conduct and vilification extends far beyond the immediate target and deeply affects our entire community's physical and psychological wellbeing. To counter this divisive behaviour, we must stand together and work towards creating a more inclusive and compassionate society that is free from the shadows of hatred and fear. By doing so, we can build a stronger and more resilient community that celebrates diversity and upholds the values of peace, understanding and mutual respect.

The display and trade of goods featuring symbols such as the Nazi hook cross, the SS bolts and the Nazi salute have a significant negative impact on Australians. These symbols are widely known to represent the ideologies of racism, violence and hatred, which contradict the Australian values of diversity, democracy and equality. Furthermore, these extremist symbols have the power to attract and radicalise vulnerable individuals, making it crucial that we take steps to prevent their spread. To uphold the principles of inclusivity, tolerance and peace in our society, we must address and prevent the use of these hateful symbols. This bill aims to deter hate speech and extremist ideologies by implementing criminal offences prohibiting the public display of these symbols. By doing so we can create a more inclusive, tolerant and accepting society where hate has no place to thrive. The offence will apply to a broad range of settings, including online. Certain exceptions will apply to religious, academic, educational, artistic, journalistic or scientific purposes if the display is not against the public interest. We must embrace this legislation and collectively reject and counteract the divisive forces that seek to spread discrimination and hate.

Speaking from my own experience as a migrant, I want to highlight how important it is to understand what this bill means to migrants, who are looking for safety, equal opportunity and a sense of belonging in their new home. Showing Nazi symbols and making Nazi gestures can be deeply upsetting and offensive, especially to the Jewish community and other minority groups targeted by fascist ideology. By banning symbols of hatred, this law will help us to build a society that welcomes diversity and makes our country safer. It will help create a space where migrants and diverse cultures can grow and succeed. The main goal of this bill is to stop the growth of harmful beliefs and to prevent acts of violence towards any religious or ethnic groups. It is extremely important for protecting diverse communities and migrants, who might be more at risk of being treated unfairly or becoming victim of hate crimes. It is also important to note that religious use of the sacred swastika by Buddhists, Hindus and Jains will not be considered a crime under this bill. The government recognises the importance of the sacred swastika as an ancient symbol that is deeply significant to Buddhist, Hindu, Jains and other religious communities. This law protects the use of the sacred swastika, ensuring that these communities can continue to practice their peaceful faiths.

Violent extremist content, which aims to manipulate individuals towards violence and sow fear within our community, has no place in our society. Section 2 of the bill introduces new offences for using a carriage service to distribute violent extremist content and for possessing or controlling such content accessed or obtained through a communication service. This refers to a wide range of platforms, which include websites, social media applications, emails, chat rooms and text messages. It also involves downloading extremist content from the internet onto a digital storage device.

Content that promotes serious violence with the intention of advancing an ideology and intimidating or coercing the government or the public is considered violent extremist material. That includes material that describes, depicts, instructs on or supports such violent acts. Individuals with extremist views exploit the internet to spread their ideas and recruit others to their cause. To combat this, it has been proposed that using carriage services to share violent extremist content should be illegal. This would allow law enforcement to act against those who misuse the internet to incite violence and distribute propaganda, with a special emphasis on safeguarding young people.

Violent extremists often have complex motivations, strategies and tactics that require a more robust legislative framework to counter. This bill includes measures to discourage the glorification of terrorists and the promotion of terrorist acts. Such acts can inspire others to imitate or engage in similar behaviour, leading to further radicalisation. To address this, the bill extends the offence of advocating terrorism to include instructions on committing terrorist acts or praising them when there is substantial risk of inciting someone to engage in terrorism. Given the seriousness of advocating terrorism and the potential for violence against innocent Australians, the bill advocates for a stronger deterrent. It raises the maximum prison sentence for this offence from five to seven years, in line with the Labor government's commitment to tougher penalties for terrorists. This streamed approach better reflects the severity of the offence and aims to deter potential offenders.

Schedule 4 of the bill intends to remove the need for regulations that mandate a sunset clause for terrorist organisations listed under division 102 of the Criminal Code. It amends the Criminal Code to ensure that regulations that proscribe terrorist organisations continue indefinitely unless revoked by the Attorney-General as the minister responsible for the AFP. These listings expire after three years and must be renewed to remain proscribed. Currently, out of the 29 organisations listed, most have been relisted multiple times, with several listed up to eight times. The current legal obligation of the Attorney-General is to remove an organisation from the list if they are no longer satisfied that it meets the legislative requirements. Any individual or organisation can request that an organisation be removed from the list by appealing to the Attorney-General. By eliminating the sunset clause, the regulations would better reflect the persistent nature of terrorist organisations and their activities.

This bill may not solve all the problems we face, but it is a positive step in the right direction. It is imperative that we take further steps to criminalise hate speech. We need to make it clear that such behaviour is not tolerated and will be met with firm consequences. This involves creating tough laws and penalties for those propagating such harmful rhetoric. We must ensure that we clearly communicate that such symbols are not welcome in our great nation. It is not just our responsibility but also our conviction and promise to create an Australia that truly respects, values and cherishes every citizen. Rest assured that the Albanese Labor government is committed to taking necessary action to ensure the safety and peace of mind of all Australians from hate and slander. Let us stand united, because together we are stronger.

I commend this bill to the House.

Sadly, there is much that is wrong in the world, and some people say some dreadful things. In recent days and weeks, we saw that with Hamas on 7 October and, since then, in the Middle East. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 goes some of the way to addressing some of the wrong that is in the world, that is in Australia and that still exists today. It's people's legal right to have protests, but when people are actively calling out 'gas the Jews' and 'kill the Jews' in those gatherings in front of the iconic Sydney Opera House, it is beyond the pale to think that could still happen in Australia at any time, let alone in 2023.

It wasn't that long ago, in August 2021, that the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes combined to put an infiltrator in Australia's largest Neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Network. They filmed, recorded, published and broadcast what they saw. What they saw shocked the nation. The network's leader was recorded comparing Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant to Nelson Mandela. We all remember the long walk to freedom. We all remember how he united South Africa after apartheid. He's held up, along with Mother Teresa and other modern-day saints, as somebody who united the world. But this network leader told his followers that Tarrant would stay in jail 'until we win the revolution'—a reference to the race war or societal collapse that the group trains for. This group was active in regional Australia. Well done to those media organisations for infiltrating the network and exposing this dreadful truth that there are people out there.

I know that people have weird ideas—they're mad, bad, sad people, and they exist. This bill aims to ensure that Nazi symbols are not glorified. The coalition supports this bill. I remember as an editor of the Daily Advertiser in the 1990s, early in my tenure, praising the fact that the government of the day had refused an application by historian revisionist David Irving to enter Australia. A little bit of research tells me that Irving applied in 1992 and was refused in 1993. He applied and was refused again in 1996 and in 2003, failing the immigration character test. An English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, an antisemite and a racist, who for 'his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence'. Furthermore, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Adolf Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict the Fuhrer in a favourable light.

The day Hitler died, 30 April 1945, was a good day. Six million Jews lost their lives because of the Final Solution. They still hurt today. The world remembers and should never forget what happened at Auschwitz and elsewhere. That anybody would glorify a Nazi symbol is beyond the pale. But when I wrote those editorials in the 1990s, I was gobsmacked that two people in my readership not only wrote letters to the editor agreeing with Irving's views but were quite happy to put their names to them. I printed those letters to show that it's amazing that people think like that. I think my community has moved on from that, but I well remember going to inspect a prospective house which was up for sale and seeing a Nazi flag draped over the double bed in the main bedroom. I suppose you could argue that people can hang what they like in their own homes, but, seriously, the Nazi symbol is a symbol of evil. It's a symbol of hatred and it's rightly reviled, as is, quite frankly, the ISIS flag.

What has been done to the beautiful Yazidi people, who have been subjected to dreadful torture and death in many parts of the world where our soldiers have bravely gone to fight for democracy and freedom even in recent years, is quite sad. Then we look at some of the things that were done in Afghanistan by the ruthless Taliban regime and the fact that 42 of our best and bravest laid down their lives so that girls and women could have a better opportunity. Sadly, some of that, and some might argue a lot of that, has now gone.

But the most important parts of this bill prohibit the public display of, let's face it, some of the most powerful symbols of antisemitism our world has ever seen. When I say powerful, I'm talking about that revulsion that people have for the Nazi symbols—the swastika and the double-sig rune. I'm talking of the evil that those symbols portray. I get absolutely infuriated when people on X, formerly known as Twitter, suggest—and it's happened to me—that people that they do not like are in some way Nazis. They depict them as members of the Third Reich. They put the little moustache on them. It is beyond belief what people will write on Twitter, and it's not just the extreme right; it's also the extreme left. This parliament is the best for coming together to agree on something like this, and I know the coalition supports this bill. I commend the government for bringing it forward, and let's hope that it rightly passes before we rise for the year. I'm sure it will. The member for Watson, the Leader of the House, said that it would.

As I say, these symbols are associated with the murder of more than six million Jews and countless others in concentration camps during the Second World War from 1939 to 1945. It's not just about the deaths in those concentration camps and in those gas chambers—those places of extermination. You could only imagine the number of Jews who died in the decade that followed. One of the most famous utterances about war is by Dr Brendan Nelson, perhaps the best prime minister we never had, who talked of the 60,000 Australians who lost their lives in the Great War. We all know that no war is great, but in the Great War, also known as the First World War, from 1914 to 1918 we lost 60,000 men. We lost women too, but they were mainly men. In the 10 years that followed, another 60,000 died from the effects of shell shock, war wounds and just basically the effects of war. So, if six million Jews died in World War II, you can imagine how many more of their family members perished in the decade that followed. Those Nazi hunters were right to pursue them and chase them down into South America and other places. They needed hunting down, because they were vile, dreadful, evil people; they had to have justice served upon them. A million Australians served in the fight against the race based ideologies of the Nazis and Imperial Japan during World War II.

I have to say that Germany and Japan are some of our greatest friends now, as they should be. I know that Cowra, which is in my electorate in the Central West, reached out the hand of friendship. It's one of the greatest towns of international understanding, peace and friendship. They have a peace bell that they gong regularly. They have a festival. They have beautiful Japanese gardens—the best outside Tokyo, Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, Japan. They have the best gardens. For those who haven't visited them, put it on your bucket list.

This is how it should be. It should not be the fact that we think of Japan and Germany in a bad way, but we have to, and we must always remember the atrocities caused by elements within those countries during the Second World War. It was a state-sponsored campaign by the Third Reich to eliminate an entire people. But it was worse than that. The Nazi regime's industrialised extermination resulted in the Holocaust. It was one of the worst crimes, if not the worst crime, committed in history.

The public display of Nazi symbols is abhorrent to the Australian way of life. Anybody who does that should be locked up immediately. The New South Wales government has moved to make progress in this field. I commend Premier Minns for that. This has to be above politics. We as a parliament should always—and we do—abhor genocide, mass murder, and any of these forms of persecution. All too sadly, Australia is seeing the biggest upsurge in antisemitism in generations after the 7 October attacks by Hamas, by that terrorist group within Palestine, against Israel. What has followed around the world is quite disgraceful.

It saddens me that schoolchildren are being encouraged to leave their classrooms to go and protest about something which, quite frankly, they know nothing about. The teachers who encourage this should take a good, hard, long look at themselves because it kindles hatred. It doesn't matter whether you're a Palestinian baby or whether you're a baby born in Israel, you're a baby; you're an infant—you deserve every chance and every opportunity to live a full and happy and healthy life. And yet the antisemitism has followed.

There has been a 482 per cent rise in antisemitic incidents in seven weeks—482 per cent! The figures are just remarkable. Jewish people are being told to stay home. This isn't the Australia I want to say I'm proud to be in. The police shouldn't have to tell Jewish people to stay home. Jewish people are worried about their children wearing the Jewish school uniform out and about in public. It's bad enough that the Nazis put the symbol on the Jews and tattooed them so that they would be easily identified by the SS, but that's not Australia. This antisemitism has to stop. It must stop!

I speak to Josh Frydenberg, the former member for Kooyong, who's one of my best friends, every day. He's so upset by all this—so upset—and rightly so, and I know that is shared by the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. It's just extraordinary that this is happening in Australia. So that is why the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is important. The Nazi symbol should be remembered but only in history books and only in movies depicting what was one of the worst incidents, if not the worst incident, in history.

Today, from listening to members like the member for Riverina, the member for Holt previously and members from right across the chamber—from right across the political spectrum—we can all agree on one undeniable truth, and that is that hatred and intolerance is not welcome in Australia. It doesn't matter what town you're in, what state you're in or what part of this vast country you're in—hatred and intolerance is not welcome. Members of my family, members of the families of other members and senators of parliament and members from families right across this country bravely fought against hatred. They bravely fought against the vile, antisemitic, cruel regime that was the Nazi's, which was recognisable by that vile hooked cross or the sig rune.

I just want to say that we have an amazing country here in Australia—we really do. We are diverse. We are multicultural. Again, no matter what part of the country you're in, there are people from all over the world, from different ethnicities and from different religions. We come together as one. What we must defend, protect and strengthen is the fabric of our multicultural and diverse society, because it is this, our people and our communities, which is our greatest asset and what makes Australia the greatest country on Earth. I know that every member in this chamber, both in here and in the other place, know that we must reject hatred, we must reject violence and we must reject racism. What we all must do, on the flip side, is celebrate love, celebrate kindness and celebrate tolerance.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 goes a long way to achieving just that. What this bill will do is create new offences for publicly displaying prohibited hate symbols or trading in items bearing those hate symbols. Those prohibited symbols—the Nazi hooked cross, the Nazi double-sig rune, or the SS bolts, and those associated with terrorist organisations—are widely recognised as representing hatred, violence and racism. They are incompatible with what we are and who we are in Australia. From the cities to the regions to out bush, they are incompatible with who we are as Australian people—as a multicultural and democratic society. Both offences would carry a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment.

The public display offence is designed to prevent the harassment and the vilification of innocent Australians throughout our communities who are targeted by Nazi, Neo-Nazi and terrorist organisation supporters both in person and online. The trading offence would target commercial profiting, including the selling, renting or leasing of paraphernalia containing the prohibited Nazi symbols or symbols, again, associated with terrorist organisations. No-one should be making a profit off these symbols. It is disgraceful that people are, and that should not be the case anymore. The offences would not capture legitimate use of the symbols, as the member for Riverina said at the conclusion of his speech, that aren't intended to incite hatred, hostility or violence, including where they're used in genuine academic, educational or scientific purposes—and that's important. As the member for Riverina said, we need to remember these in history, but they don't need to be a part of our society. They don't need to be a part of the Australian society.

Equally as important is that the amendment to this bill, and this bill as a whole, will criminalise performing the Nazi salute in a public place. This goes to addressing the significant harm that is caused to the Australian community by this behaviour. The Nazi salute, as we all know in this chamber, represents ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with our way of life, with our multicultural society, with our democratic society—and our inclusive society. The Nazi salute has been adopted by individuals and groups as a mechanism to harass, to vilify and to instil fear in members of the Australian community. This new measure is intended to reduce the prevalence of the Nazi salute in public places, protect individuals from harm and protect the wider community from the distress caused by this widely recognised gesture.

Again, we have to defend, we have to protect and we have to strengthen the fabric of our multicultural, diverse and inclusive society. That is why we are all here. That is why we are talking about this bill right now. That is why we all come to Canberra for most of the year—to make sure that we protect that.

Schedule 2 of this bill will create new offences for using a carriage service for violent extremist material, possessing or controlling violent extremist material obtained or accessed using a carriage service—a carriage service would include a range of platforms, such as webpages, social media applications, email, chat forums and text messages—or downloading violent extremist material from the internet onto a digital storage device.

Violent extremist material which is used to radicalise people to violence and instil fear in the community has no place in Australia. Criminalising the use of a carriage service for violent extremist material would allow law enforcement to take action against persons who are exploiting the internet to recruit, to spread propaganda and to incite violence, particularly through the targeting of young Australians, from the cities to the bush.

Violent extremist material would include material that describes, depicts or provides instruction on, or supports or facilitates, serious violence for the purpose of advancing an ideology and coercing or intimidating the government or the public. The offences could be committed using a range of platforms, as I said earlier, including webpages, social media platforms, chat forums, text messages—you name it—or by downloading the material onto a digital storage device. So there is no escape.

The offences which would be punishable by up to five years imprisonment would facilitate law enforcement intervention at an earlier stage in an individual's progress to violent radicalisation, provide greater opportunity for rehabilitation and also provide greater opportunity to disrupt those violent extremist networks that we are seeing on the rise domestically here in Australia. They would also complement the existing framework for regulating online service providers, including the offence of hosting abhorrent violent material and the eSafety Commissioner's powers to require providers to remove or to cease to host certain content.

The bill will also set out a range of defences, covering circumstances such as where violent extremist material was accessed or transmitted for law enforcement purposes or as part of legitimate reporting of the news. The bill is also going to expand the advocating terrorism offence in section 80.2C of the Criminal Code to include providing instruction on the doing of a terrorist act and praising the doing of a terrorist act where there is substantial risk that the praise will lead another person to engage in that act. This would address increasing concerns about the promotion and idealisation of extremist views as a form of radicalisation, particularly in regard to our young people, the youth of Australia, becoming radicalised in those online forums. Again, we know some webpages and social media are so prevalent throughout Australian society today.

The promotion and idealisation of extremist views is of increasing concern. We've heard many members say that today, and I'll say it again. It is of increasing concern, particularly with respect to our young people who are being radicalised online. Glorifying terrorists or terrorist acts can incite others to imitate or seek to engage in similar behaviour and further their radicalisation. The offence already covers counselling, promoting, encouraging or urging the doing of a terrorist act. Instructing on and praising the doing of a terrorist act should be covered by the offence as this conduct supports another person to engage in terrorism and therefore amounts to advocacy of that act. Recognising that advocating terrorism is a serious, intentional act that can incite violence against innocent Australians in our community, schedule 3 of the bill will also increase the maximum penalty for this offence from five to seven years in prison. This would ensure that the penalty more appropriately accounts for the potential severity of offending and better aligns with the penalties for similar offences in the Criminal Code.

Schedule 4 of the bill would remove sunsetting requirements from regulations listing organisations as terrorist organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code. At present, listings cease to have an effect after a period of three years and must be remade for an organisation to remain proscribed. The removal of these sunsetting requirements from terrorist listing regulations would help align the framework with the enduring nature of terrorist organisations and their operation. Of the 29 organisations that are currently listed, the considerable majority have been relisted multiple times—some as many as eight times, or even more. While there are existing strong safeguards to ensure that any listing of an organisation is appropriate and ceases should the organisation meet that threshold, this bill would enhance these safeguards. In addition, the mandate of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security would be expanded to allow the committee to conduct its own motion review at any time into whether a listed organisation continues to meet legislative thresholds, providing an independent review process to ensure that any listings remain appropriate.

Finally, the minister currently has a legal obligation to delist an organisation if it no longer satisfies the legislative threshold. Any individual or organisation can apply to that minister, requesting that an organisation be delisted, and this provision provides an ongoing opportunity for anyone to bring information to the minister's attention and engage the minister's obligation to delist the organisation if they are no longer satisfied that the threshold is met.

In my remaining minute, I'll just go back to the heart of what this bill is, which is making sure that we ban hatred symbols in Australia—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:04 to 17:26

As an Australian, what I'm proudest of and what I treasure most is our success as a multicultural nation. We are the most successful multicultural country in the world. But our success is under threat from those who would divide us. Antisemitism is on the rise not only around the world but here in Australia, and it is the most serious threat to our social cohesion that we face. We know that antisemitism doesn't just affect Jewish Australians; it is a harbinger of broader hate and prejudice. That is why this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is so important. It will ban some of the most egregious and hateful symbols of antisemitism, including the Nazi salute, and the trade and glorification of Nazi paraphernalia as well as banning proscribed terrorist organisations. It bears witness to our determination to support our Jewish community and our multicultural success. I support this bill with all my heart because, for my community, the rise of antisemitism is an existential threat. This bill sends a clear and unequivocal message that antisemitism will not be tolerated in this country—not now, not ever—but, in itself, it is not enough.

The electorate of Wentworth has the country's highest proportion of Jewish Australians, and my community is scared. The horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October have not only created a war in Israel and Gaza; they're causing an unprecedented rise in antisemitism in our community. Australia has been a safe haven for many people from around the world. It has provided a chance for many, like my own mum, to come to a new country, to bring up their families safely, to work hard and to build a prosperous life for their families. Australia has been a particularly safe haven for the Jewish people, and they have paid that back in the contribution they have made to the broader Australian society. But, tragically, it is starting to feel like this is changing. In the words of one of my friends, 'Australia is scary, which is awful, as it's possibly one of the best places on earth to be Jewish.'

Antisemitism in Australia isn't new. Even in the last year and a half since I became a member of parliament, I've dealt with a number of antisemitic incidents in my community. In one of the most egregious examples, a young boy from one our local schools was locked in a locker as a simulation of being in a gas chamber. Antisemitism in our universities has been on the rise, and it is heartbreaking to learn that almost two-thirds of Jewish students—this is from before 7 October—in our universities report antisemitic incidents and around half say that sometimes they've hidden their Jewish identity on campus. Since 7 October, antisemitism has become so much worse, with a fivefold increase in the number of incidents compared with previous times. In my community alone, in Wentworth, we've seen posters of Hitler and graffiti on Jewish homes and businesses, including 'kill Jews' and 'Jews live here'. We have seen acres of antisemitic content on social media. We've seen imams preaching hate and a provocative motorcycle convoy travelling in our community to intimidate Jewish Australians.

Some are even calling for the boycott of Jewish or Zionist businesses, simply because they support the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. I find this appalling. Many of these businesses were created by first or second generation Holocaust survivors who came to Australia to create a better life. These businesses have contributed to our country. They have provided employment across the board to many different Australians. Don't the people calling for that boycott realise that one of the first antisemitic acts of the Nazis was to boycott Jewish businesses?

Just two days after the 1,200 Israelis were brutally murdered by Hamas and over 240 were taken hostage, we saw hateful antisemitic chants at the Opera House, our Australian icon. My community still can't believe that happened in Australia and is extremely troubled that no-one has yet been brought to justice for this. These antisemitic incidents have mostly been intimidation rather than physical violence, although what happened in Caulfield was a terrible example of physical violence.

ASIO is telling us that they monitor known threats of violence but that they are concerned about unexpected lone wolf attacks. So our schools and our synagogues in my area, who already have guards to check whether you would like to worship or drop off your kids, have significantly increased their security since the attack. That includes parents volunteering for security duty. I drive past those schools and those synagogues with those guards almost every day when I'm in Wentworth. It is very hard to believe that this happens in Sydney, which is one of the safest places on earth.

The members of my Jewish community are scared. They feel isolated. The impact is real. To give you some examples, on referendum day, on the day on which the Voice was voted, I was going around the polling booths and I met one of my volunteers. I said, 'Where's your wife?' I knew she was a passionate supporter of the Voice. When I asked her husband, he said that there was some antisemitic graffiti outside their house and it made her too scared to go out.

Another woman came to see me the other week. She was born in Australia. She's the daughter of a Holocaust survivor on one side and a long-time Jewish Australian family on the other who've been here for more than a hundred years. After seeing the antisemitic chants at the Opera House, her 12-year-old son asked her if they were still safe here. She talked to me about how she identifies as a progressive person and someone who cares a lot about environmental issues but how she does not feel safe or welcome in the environmental sector anymore. A man told me he received a text from an old university friend. It was the first time he'd heard from her in years, but the message was blunt: 'What you are doing in Gaza is appalling.' It was as if he was responsible for every action of the Israeli government and as if Hamas had never attacked.

Some of the antisemitism we're seeing is particularly chilling because of the history of antisemitism in the world. The Jewish Holocaust survivors and their families in my electorate remember when they were accepted members of the Jewish community or other European communities. They attended schools. They worshipped as they wished. They ran businesses. They even fought alongside their nation in World War I. They remember how things changed, step by step, as antisemitism festered and grew, unopposed, until it overwhelmed them and saw two-thirds of European Jews murdered in the Holocaust. That the symbols of the Nazi regime could re-emerge and be celebrated 90 years on is devastating for them.

I am also concerned that we are seeing an increase in hostility to Israel. It's not necessarily antisemitic—we can all disagree with Israeli politics—but it risks this emerging hostility and increasing antisemitism or, at least, really isolating the Jewish community in Australia. In a diverse country, we will inevitably see different views on conflicts overseas, including in Israel and Gaza. But what does it say to a Jewish student when the teachers federation promotes teachers wearing a keffiyeh into the classroom to express their political views? Where is the teacher's care for those Jewish students? I support people's right to protest; I support people's right to wear their cultural or religious dress, but I am really concerned about teachers using their positions in our schools as political platforms.

This parliament and parliaments across the country must lead by example. Our first duty is the safety of our community. To this end, I have been a constant advocate for community security grants to ensure that our communities have the security infrastructure that, sadly, they need today. I know they need it. I have seen it with my own eyes in my community. I respect and thank the government for the recent investment that they have made since the attacks on 7 October.

We must also ensure that the laws and their enforcement are appropriate to protect people from vilification and violence. I support the New South Wales government's work to improve the prosecution process for the offences of publicly threatening or inciting violence against a person or group based on race and religion. There is no place for that in this country, and we must ensure that people who do that are suitably prosecuted.

Our children are our future, and we need to protect them and ensure that they feel safe and welcome in all educational environments and that we are teaching tolerance to our children from the beginning. We need to adapt our curriculum for those challenges today. We cannot let the horrific events of the Holocaust slip beyond memory as the survivors pass. Education on the pernicious history of antisemitism must be ensured, and I support the work of the ECAJ on this and will be championing it.

My personal focus is particularly on universities. I was devastated to talk to young Jewish students who told me about their experience of antisemitism in universities, and this was all before 7 October. So I'm very proud to be working with Julian Leeser and Josh Burns as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. We are working to encourage universities to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, to raise awareness amongst our university leaders of antisemitism on campus, and to improve the reporting and management of complaints around antisemitism. Through our advocacy over the last year, five universities have already adopted the definition, and we have received support from the education minister to present to the working group on university governance—specifically about antisemitism—so that the specific governance that we think is required in the university system to support the stamping out of antisemitism in universities is achieved. That is our goal. There is more work to be done on all areas, but I want to reassure the community that they are not alone in their work to stamp out antisemitism across this country.

To return to the bill, antisemitism takes many forms. This bill addresses some of the most egregious and horrific: the hate symbols and actions that celebrate the barbaric Nazi regime. Banning these symbols won't address all forms of antisemitism, but it draws a clear line, and that's important. It makes clear to Jewish Australians that all Australians recognise that bigotry, racism, hate speech and hate symbols are beyond the bounds of what we accept. Many in my community are Jewish, but this is not just an issue for Jewish Australians who suffer the direct affront of antisemitism. This is an issue of great concern for our whole community, because all Australians are diminished whenever antisemitism is allowed to fester and grow. But it goes beyond that; it goes beyond antisemitism, and it goes to the heart of our social cohesion and our multicultural strength.

Antisemitism diminishes all Australians and creates a space for other hate and prejudice to thrive. From history, we do know that, if the Jews are persecuted, other minorities are not safe. Antisemitism is a harbinger of further hate and prejudice, and we must stamp it out. I have listened to my community and I know how deeply they support this legislation. I support this law with all my heart, just as they do.

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. There is no place for hatred or intolerance in this country, but sadly there is only one purpose for some symbols: they are a way to show hate. They are a way for one person, or group of people, to clearly push hatred towards another group of people and society as a whole. I do not tolerate intolerance, and I refuse to sit back and allow this country and our communities to be in a place in which hatred is able to exist. Symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and symbols that praise the human rights atrocities of the Islamic State have no place in this country, and this government is making sure that they will not be able to make their mark on society. This legislation will criminalise public displays and the trade of the Nazi hakenkreuz and Schutzstaffel insignia, as well as the Islamic State flag. Some of the criminalised items could include flags, armbands, T-shirts, insignia and the use of those symbols online. Police will also be provided powers to direct a person to remove public displays of these symbols.

It is also important to point out that we must understand the importance of some of these symbols to some religions and other parts of society. We have been mindful of this in the drafting of this legislation. As a result, this ban will not in any way apply to the display and use of a swastika which is used for spiritual significance to religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. We also recognise the important distinction between the Islamic State, which is a terrorist organisation with a violent ideology, and the Islamic faith, which is deeply respected and valued as part of Australia's multicultural society.

This bill is separated into four schedules. The first is specifically focused on prohibited symbols. This part of the bill will create new offences for publicly displaying prohibited Nazi and Islamic State symbols or trading in items bearing those symbols. Symbols such as the Nazi hakenkreuz—or hooked cross—the Nazi double-sig rune—or SS bolts—and the Islamic State flag are as clear a representation of hatred, violence and racism as you can get, and they are completely incompatible with Australia's multiculturalism and democratic society. We aren't going in lightly on these matters. Both offences will carry a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment.

The first offence is the public display offence. This prevents the kind of hateful material by Neo-Nazi and Islamic State supporters from harming Australians both in person and online. There is also a second offence, which is known as the trading offence. This would target commercial profiting, including the selling, renting or leasing of things containing the prohibited Nazi and Islamic State symbols. We also know that there are times when these symbols are displayed without the intention of creating hate or violence. Sometimes these symbols are displayed for a genuine religious, academic, educational, artistic or scientific purpose. These offences are not intended to capture a symbol being used in these circumstances.

The second part of this legislation focuses on the use of carriage services to deal with the violent extremist material. Under this part of the bill, a carriage service is outlined as including a range of platforms such as webpages, social media applications, email, chat forums and text messages or the downloading of violent extremist material from the internet onto a digital storage device. This part of the bill creates new offences for using a carriage service for violent extremist material or possessing or controlling violent extremist material obtained or accessed using a carriage service. We cannot allow people to use the internet in order to take advantage of vulnerable people and radicalise them. We cannot allow the internet to be a place where violent extremist material is used to create fear in our community.

We absolutely have to get on top of this, and we need to do this by making sure that law enforcement have the powers that they need to be able to stop the internet from being a place of radicalisation and fear. This is exactly what this part of the bill does. The criminalisation of the use of a carriage service for violent extremist material would allow law enforcement to take action against persons who are exploiting the internet to recruit, spread propaganda and incite violence, particularly by targeting the young people of our society. The internet is a very public place. It is used by people of all ages from all parts of Australia and the world. Unfortunately, this means the content is easily spread and can be shared with people who should not be seeing it. This includes extremist content, which is of particular concern to me and my members of the Hunter.

Extremist material can be confronting and graphic and is not something that should have to be seen by anyone, especially not young people, our children or anyone else for that matter. They need to be protected from this kind of online content. This bill provides this protection and identifies clearly what is considered to be violent extremist material—that is, material that describes, depicts, provides instruction on, and supports or facilitates, serious violence for the purpose of advancing an ideology or coercing or intimidating the government or the public. This definition gives law enforcement a strong guideline and helps them to be able to make the internet a safer place, free from confronting and hateful content of extremist organisations.

There will be strong consequences for those who are found using a carriage service to spread extremist content or to radicalise others. Offences will be punishable by up to five years imprisonment and will allow law enforcement to intervene at an earlier stage of an individual's progress towards violent radicalisation. This will also provide more of a chance for rehabilitation and for the disruption of violent extremist networks. This would also complement the existing framework for regulating online service providers, including offences for hosting abhorrent and violent material, and the eSafety Commissioner's powers to require providers to remove or cease hosting certain content.

The third part of this bill takes action against those who are seen to be advocating terrorism. There are increasing concerns that a form of radicalisation, particularly with respect to young people becoming radicalised online, could include the promotion and idolisation of extremist views. There is a concern that glorifying terrorists or terrorist acts can incite others to imitate or seek to engage in similar behaviour and further their own radicalisation. This part of the bill will address these concerns by expanding the 'advocating terrorism' offence in section 80.2C of the Criminal Code to include providing instructions on the doing of a terrorist act and the praising of the doing of a terrorist act where there is substantial risk that the praise will lead another person to engage in a terrorist act.

The existing offence already covers counselling, promoting, encouraging or urging the doing of a terrorist act, but this just doesn't quite go far enough. Instructing on and praising the doing of a terrorist act also supports another person to engage in terrorism and therefore amounts to advocacy. As a result, this should also be covered by the offence.

Advocating terrorism is a serious international act that can incite violence against innocent Australians. It presents a real risk to our safety and deserves a strong punishment. That's why this bill will also increase the maximum penalty for this offence from five to seven years imprisonment. This will ensure that the penalty more appropriately accounts for the potential severity of the offending and better aligns with the penalties for similar offences in the Criminal Code.

The final part of this bill looks at terrorist organisation regulations. Currently, the listing of organisations which are considered to be terrorist organisations ceases to have effect after a period of three years and must be remade for an organisation to remain listed. This part of the bill removes these so-called sunsetting requirements from the regulations listing organisations as terrorist organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code. The reality is that there is an enduring nature to terrorist organisations and their operation. This is seen by the fact that, of the 29 organisations currently listed, the considerable majority have been relisted multiple times—some as many as eight times. The removal of the sunsetting requirements from the terrorist listing regulations would help align the framework with this enduring nature of terrorist organisations and their operation. It just makes sense to do this. Whilst there are existing strong safeguards to ensure that any listing of an organisation is appropriate and ceases should the organisation no longer meet the threshold, there can never be harm in making sure that these strong guards are more secure, and that is what this bill will do.

No-one deserves to be a victim of hatred. Sadly, in the modern world, there are many new ways that someone can be taken advantage of to spread hatred and extremism. This bill will help to prevent this and will create a better and safer Australia for all. I've got two young girls and I don't want my girls to be seeing this kind of stuff on the internet. They're eight and 10. They're starting to use the internet quite a lot for school and things like that. They're on social media. They're starting to see some things. They don't go on TikTok, but they get on Messenger with their friends. They go on plenty of different platforms, and we don't want this for our kids. Our kids don't need to see this. These are massive, massive issues from the past that we're bringing forward here, and people are profiting off this. It's just not on. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise in strong support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 that the government has put forward. I thank the government for finally getting to this bill. It is important, and we've seen a rise in very unfortunate incidents in recent months but also in recent years in relation to Nazi symbolism and, sadly, both the Nazi swastika and the Nazi salute. However, I would say to Australians that it is still a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of people in our country who are stupid enough and dense enough to even entertain Nazi ideology or flirt with these symbols or pretend that they are somehow relevant in a free, democratic, tolerant, open and modern society. We must remember it's a very small fraction of people because the vast bulk of Australians reject this ideology. They reject this symbolism, and, really, this symbolism should be confined to historical examination and understanding what happened and why it happened. They're the important lessons of history that we must learn.

On the streets of Melbourne in recent months we've seen gangs of people throwing Nazi salutes on public transport. It's obviously designed to intimidate other passengers, to intimidate Jewish people and to intimidate average Australians with this evil ideology. Sadly, we have to put into the Commonwealth criminal code this form of legislation to tell people who are a very, very small fraction of people who are stupid enough to throw a Nazi salute to intimidate others that it is against the law. It's sad because we have to do it and it's sad because it is really a very, very small fraction. Nevertheless, I welcome it and I want to see our law enforcement agencies take sterner action against people who are trying to deliberately intimidate other passengers and other people on the streets of our cities and on our public transport.

We all know the evil ideology that this symbolism represents. As I've spoken about before, my own family were the victims of a Nazi massacre—a very bad and shocking one—and, like so many people from Europe who fled here after the war, they've been affected permanently by Nazism and its subsequent evil. It is quite shocking in a modern country like Australia that there are still people dense enough to flirt with this kind of hate filled ideology. I welcome the fact that the government has put forward many schedules here that actually prohibit the SS symbol, the double-sig rune, as well as the Nazi swastika and also that they ultimately accepted the opposition's amendment on the Nazi salute. That's something that should have been in the bill from the very, very beginning. We welcome the fact that they've accepted that amendment as well.

We should be bipartisan about this kind of bill. We should be stern about it and we should be prompt about it, given what we've seen with the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah and the evil and the atrocities that we've seen in the Middle East. It would have been quite good to already have this bill in place, but it is good that we are doing it now, and I thank the government for doing it. It is also very important, in the schedules in this bill, that we are also listing symbolism from the proscribed organisations in Australia. That symbolism as well will be affected by this legislation, and I welcome that. There are more followers in Australia, unfortunately, of some of these proscribed organisations by volume, and it is important that we ban these things as well because they are just as evil as Nazism and just as hate filled, violent and potentially dangerous to many, many Australians.

I welcome the listing in schedule 4 of terrorist organisations and the subsequent symbols for those organisations. This should take care of the worst elements that we sometimes see come to Australia and sustain this ideology—and their symbols as well. When you consider the schedules of this bill, I think every parliamentarian would welcome the various measures designed to prevent the display of these hate symbols and hate filled speech and activities, and I think all Australians will be happy to see a bill like this because, ultimately, we should not have to put up with those horrible scenes, be it at the Sydney Opera House, on the streets of Melbourne or on public transport. Wherever it is, people who want to put these hate symbols forward and intimidate other Australians are not Australian, and these acts are not Australian. Outlawing this can only be for the good.

In the Senate, though, we saw senators taking extraordinary steps of calling, a couple of times, for the coalition's legislation not to be passed, and Senator Green even called for the parliament not to pass legislation prohibiting the display of Nazi symbols because that legislation had been drafted by the coalition. This has been through a too-long genesis, given what we're facing now. I do think this really isn't about politics. No-one's going to have a win out of this in a political sense. This is about the safety of our country and, ultimately, about preventing a very small fraction of very idiotic people from intimidating others inside our own country. So, instead of getting that done about eight months ago, we have taken a long time to get here, but here we are, and I do welcome the bill.

I think it's open for the parliament to consider, in future amendments to this bill, other hate symbols. I would point to the fact that, just like millions of people came here following World War II because of Nazism and its subsequent evils, from all parts of Europe people have fled the evils of communism as well. A lot of people have come from eastern Europe and fled the same sorts of atrocities that we saw from the Nazi regime. It would be open to the parliament in the future to consider the banning of the hammer and sickle logo as well, recognising that that was responsible for the deaths of about 60 million people who were rounded up in camps by Joseph Stalin and by other evil dictators. From many parts of eastern Europe, great migrants came here to flee that oppression and that systemic death dealing that the state engaged in inside many parts of communism. I look forward to subsequent debates in the future about some of those hate symbols that represent the deaths of, sadly, tens of millions of people because of the regimes they represent.

But today we're here to take a step against a very great evil and to ensure that we don't have that very small fraction of Australians intimidating others in our free and democratic country. There is no place for intimidation, no place for racial or religious vilification and no place for this kind of display that's deliberately designed to intimidate other people. We welcome this bill and the fact that the government has adopted the amendments on the Nazi salute. I think that is wise. I think it is wise that, in a very considered matter, any time these issues come up and we have these kinds of problems with small fractions of our society and want to add other symbols, we do it together in a whole-of-parliament manner, because all of us do ultimately stand, in our free, tolerant and open country, against this form of hatred and this form of great evil.

I thank the government. I fully support the bill and I look forward to seeing this help our agencies deal with some very, very stupid people in our country who think that it is okay to intimidate others with these very evil symbols.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, and I am proud to be part of a government that is cracking down on tax advisor misconduct. Our government has already stated how appalled we were by the outrageous behaviour by consultants such as PricewaterhouseCoopers and the allegations about other firms in the sector more broadly.

We now know that multinational organisations, through the misuse of confidential government information, had a head start on how to sidestep and avoid Australia's tax laws, which is simply outrageous. This is a head start that put $180 million a year of Australian taxpayers' money at risk. Of course, we also now know that the Tax Practitioners Board investigation exposed how a multinational tax advisory firm had betrayed trust for personal gain. This is a truly appalling and unconscionable series of calculated and deliberate decisions. This happened instead of ensuring that the fair share of tax was paid in Australia.

I'm really pleased to say that our government has a clear agenda when it comes to tax and multinationals. Legislation currently before the parliament will tighten multinational tax loopholes and increase transparency. We will ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia. We have had a clear reform agenda on this issue, and it's important that we do not allow the misconduct of some tax advisors to undo all that good work or undermine our agenda.

We know that the PwC scandal exposed many shortcomings in Australia's regulatory frameworks. It's important to note how these actions carry the serious potential of undermining community expectations in relation to our tax system. The shortcomings demonstrated that not only multinationals but also their tax advisors need to be held to account. As a government, we have taken the important, necessary and decisive action required to crack down on tax advisor misconduct. It's essential that we build—and, in some cases, rebuild—public confidence and trust in our tax systems and structures to ensure that we keep both the system and capital markets strong and have real integrity in our systems.

Schedule 1 will expand tax promoter penalty laws to ensure that promoters of such tax schemes face significant consequences for their actions. Penalties will extend to significant global entities. This will ensure that both corporate and non-corporate entities like partnerships are captured by these laws. I'm proud to represent a government that is serious about these issues, and I know that this is an issue that matters a great deal to my community in Chisholm, in Victoria.

We are taking the significant step to increase the maximum penalties for these entities that engage in such conduct because we are so committed to reform in this area. Specifically, the penalty will increase 100-fold from the current $7.8 million to as much as $780 million. This change very clearly demonstrates how committed we are as a government to getting the policy settings right. Naturally, we anticipate these penalties will act as a deterrent to any future misconduct by multinationals in this space.

Through this legislation, the scope of important definitions used by the Australian Taxation Office to apply the promoter penalty laws will also broaden. This will provide an additional two years for the tax office to gather information and evidence. Quite simply, the message from our government—as stated by the Assistant Treasurer, the Minister for Financial Services—is clear: do not promote schemes that sidestep our tax laws. You will be caught and you will be punished.

Schedule 2 is about whistleblower protection. It extends existing tax protections to whistleblowers who disclose information to the Tax Practitioners Board. Those who become aware of misconduct within the tax agent profession should be protected when they bring that information to the appropriate regulator, without fear of recriminations or punishment. This measure responds to a key recommendation of the independent review into the Tax Practitioners Board and the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. It protects tax whistleblowers from detrimental conduct, such as termination or litigation, in response to a disclosure. If detriment is suffered, it will allow whistleblowers to seek compensation. This is really important.

Schedule 3 will allow the Tax Practitioners Board to publish more details of its investigations and decisions publicly, which will provide transparency to Australians. Additionally, it will also require the Tax Practitioners Board to keep those details published for up to five years. This bill will also increase the investigation time frame to two years, up from the current total time of six months.

Schedule 4 will remove limitations on information sharing, which were a barrier to regulators acting in response to the PwC breach of confidence. I think any reasonably minded person would agree that it took far too long for the government to be advised of PwC's actions. We now know that the misconduct first occurred in 2014 and was discovered by the Australian Taxation Office in 2017. But it was not until December 2022—not even 12 months ago—that the government was made aware of this appalling misconduct. That is simply not good enough.

Measures in schedule 4 will enable our tax regulators to share protected information with Treasury about confidentiality breaches by those engaging with the Commonwealth. This will then allow Treasury to take the necessary action to properly and swiftly respond to the breach, including by disclosing information to agencies and certain ministers. This will then allow government to deliver the appropriate response. The Australian Taxation Office and the Tax Practitioners Board will be able to share protected information with professional disciplinary bodies where they suspect actions may constitute a breach of the relevant professional codes or standards. This will ensure all professionals, no matter the framework, are regulated under these provisions.

These initial reforms will not be our last. Further areas of reform have already been foreshadowed. Separately, reviews have already been announced, and these will deliver options to government progressively over the next two years. Consultation has commenced on the first review, which is on more robust sanctions powers for the Tax Practitioners Board. These immediate and other measures will encourage better behaviour, provide further deterrents to misconduct and strengthen the resilience of regulatory frameworks.

This important piece of regulation also forms part of our government's 2023-24 budget commitment to implement a cap on the use of deductions under the petroleum resource rent tax. This is the first element of the government's response to the petroleum resource rent tax review of gas transfer pricing.

Schedule 5 will limit the proportion of assessable petroleum resource rent tax income that can be offset, and this new amount will be to a maximum deduction of 90 per cent. These changes will contribute to an expected increase in tax receipts of $2.4 billion over the forward estimates, meaning that the gas industry pays more tax sooner. As it stands, most LNG projects are not expected to pay any significant petroleum resource rent tax until the 2030s, so it's pleasing to see that our government's actions and reforms in this area ensure that this will bring forward this tax revenue. Our government cares about sensible changes that will deliver a fairer return to the Australian taxpayer from the resources that they own.

Ultimately, the purpose of this bill is to amend taxation, taxation administration and related legislation to enact a range of measures. We will deliver billions to the budget by closing tax loopholes used by multinationals, clamping down on tax havens and increasing transparency. We know that multinational tax avoidance and the use of tax havens threatens our nation's tax base. When tax revenue gets lost to tax havens, Australia loses revenue that could be used instead to fund vital services like hospitals and schools. We have a strong record in government on multinational tax. We started the job when we were last in government, and we built a policy suite, which this bill is part of, to deliver billions to the budget bottom line to make our system fairer and our community stronger.

():  Contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 is one of the most laughable and pathetic attempts at a wedge that you could imagine, and I want to explain why. Most of this bill, schedules 1 to 4, is about dealing in some way with the appalling behaviour we saw when big consultants took the country for a ride, obtaining confidential information and using it for their clients' own advantage. I suspect we wouldn't be here today debating that without the work of senators such as Senator Barbara Pocock, who has led the charge in the Senate to uncover just how insidious the relationship with these massive consulting firms is—they donate to Labor and Liberal, get contracts from the government and then go off and benefit their clients. I'll come to that in a moment.

Are you suggesting that we took money to cover that up?

I'll come to that, to the provisions in the bill, in a moment. That's schedules 1 to 4; it's basically what the bill is about—'tax accountability and fairness', it's called. Then we come to schedule 5. What's in schedule 5? A bill to weakly change the gas tax, written by the gas industry! Why has the government decided to put a weak provision, written by and about the gas industry, at the end of a bill that's about consultants? They've done so in the hope that, when it gets to the Senate, there's going to be a wedge. Everyone is going to have to vote for it because they like cracking down on the consultants and therefore they'll have to vote for the gas tax as well. What an absolutely laughable, pathetic attempt at a tactical wedge! That's why the Greens are going to move to split the bill.

We'll move to split the bill when it comes to the Senate so that we can deal with them separately, because they're two separate issues. One is: how do we deal with consultants and the way that they've taken this country and governments for a ride? The second is: do we want a tax that's for the people and makes the gas giants pay their fair share of tax, or do we want Labor's version, which was written by the gas industry and which the gas industry is begging this parliament to pass? The big gas corporations have gone out in the papers and said: 'Please pass this. We don't really have to pay much tax under it, and we helped to write it. Please pass it. If you don't pass this, the government might have to negotiate with the Greens, and they're going to impose even more tax!' The government, in this clever brainwave of theirs to supposedly avoid having to deal with the Greens, have said, 'I know—we'll bundle it up in a bill that deals with consultants.' Come on!

People can see through what this government is trying to do in every sphere of activity. This government is not prepared to take on the big corporations; this government is prepared to let the big corporations write the rules, including the provisions in this bill. Meanwhile, the gas giants make out like bandits and push up the price of everything. People are in a cost-of-living crisis while the big corporations are making record profits, and Labor refuses to take them on. Labor refuses to make them pay their fair share of tax. We heard from the previous speaker: 'Oh, this is going to be brilliant. It's going to raise $2.4 billion over the estimates. That's a few hundred million dollars a year.' You know what the Parliamentary Budget Office said? A proper gas tax would bring in $94 billion over a decade, $9 billion a year.

In one year, with these big gas giants making out like bandits off the back of the war in Ukraine, which sent the price of gas through the roof, and off the pain of everyday Australians having to pay higher gas bills, we're looking at $90 billion of revenue. That's in one year! These gas giants have had it so good. In one year, these gas giants—27 of them—brought in about $90 billion in revenue, and do you know how much tax they paid on it? None. The average nurse in this country pays more tax than a multinational. Labor comes along and says, 'I'll tell you what we'll do: we'll make them pay a few hundred million a year.' 'That's 'million' with an 'm'! And they have the gall to stand up here and say it's about cracking down on the big corporations. No, it's not. It's going to raise $2.4 billion over the estimates.

How did they arrive at that figure? Where did this option come from? We know who wrote it. It was APPEA, the lobby group; Beach Energy, owned by the WA's billionaire media mogul Kerry Stokes; BP; Chevron; ConocoPhillips; Cooper Energy; Esso Australia Pty Ltd; INPEX; Mitsui and Mitsubishi; Santos; Shell; TotalEnergies; Vermilion Oil and Gas; and Woodside. That's the list of the corporations, which the Greens uncovered in estimates, that all signed non-disclosure agreements to sit in the same room as the government and write this option. The Treasury came up with several options—this is the weakest of them all—and Labor developed it in the same room, literally, as the gas corporations. Of course the industry welcomes this tax. They wrote it.

It gets worse. Two types of expenditure are exempt from limited deductions, and they have the obscure names of 'starting base expenditure' and 'resource base expenditure'. I didn't hear the previous members talk about this, but do you know what? These types of expenditure apply to one gas project owned by one company. Woodside's North West Shelf project will be exempt from the changes. Did Labor take any donations from Woodside? Yes. And it gets worse still. The tax gives a seven-year holiday on gas projects, for no reason other than rewarding gas donors. The Treasurer says it's not so bad as to deter investment, but (a) we shouldn't be encouraging new investment in gas in the middle of a climate crisis—but we know Labor wants more gas—and (b) the whole point of this is to tax the superprofits of these big gas corporations.

This whole tax is incredibly weak and incredibly embarrassing. Labor knows that there are the numbers in the Senate, thanks to the Greens, to add a minimum of double the tax from this. We have enough senators; if Labor has the courage to come and vote with us, we can double the tax take from this and make the gas giants pay just a little bit more. As I said, in the context where the Parliamentary Budget Office has said that making these gas giants pay tax could bring in $9 billion a year, that's a pretty modest ask from us. But, no, Labor are so worried about having to negotiate with the Senate, which the Australian people elected, that they decided to hide it in a bill that has to do with regulating consultants.

We're going to move to split the bills and deal with them separately, and Labor is going to be forced to deal with something really crucial: is this government prepared to take on big corporations in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis? What we know in this country is that rents are going up, mortgages are going up, the cost of groceries is going up, electricity bills are going up and fuel bills are going up. Everything is going up, but the government won't step in and stop it. Why? It's because the big corporations are making massive amounts of money out of it. What we should do to tackle the cost-of-living crisis is make these big gas giants—which are making profits out of a dictator's invasion of Ukraine, and the pain of everyday people here in this country—pay their fair share of tax. We could then use that money to put dental into Medicare so that people don't have to pay dental bills. We could use it to wipe student debt and fund a rent freeze. That's how to tackle inflation without using everyday people as cannon fodder, but that's not what Labor is doing. They're letting the gas giants write their gas tax, letting them make billions of dollars a year and pay zero tax on it. They're letting the gas giants send Australia's gas offshore, along with the profits, and leaving everyday people to pick up the tab.

We have a different approach. The Greens don't take donations from big corporations, so we're prepared to take them on. We're prepared to make them pay a decent amount of tax, not the amount of tax they got to write when Labor sat them all in a room, got them to sign secrecy agreements and co-wrote this pathetic piece of legislation with. Ask people what they think is the best way to tackle the inflation crisis: 'Do you think Labor's way is a good way to do it—let the RBA keep putting up interest rates, so that your mortgage goes up, and allow unlimited rent rises—or do you think a better way would be to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax and use that money to wipe student debt, get dental into Medicare and fund a rent freeze?' I know what most people would say. What this government doesn't seem to realise is that people are at breaking point.

Unlimited rent rises around this country mean that many people are now only one unfair rent rise away from eviction, but Labor got everyone together and said that their approach would be to back unlimited rent rises across the country. People are in pain. We should be taking on the big corporations, the big gas corporations. Don't let them write the tax. Let's write the tax so that they pay their fair share of tax and you don't have this ridiculous, appalling situation where a nurse is paying more tax on their income than a multinational does. Let's make them pay their decent share of tax.

Let's also properly take on what the consultants have been doing. Again, the Greens have pursued this issue because the public has asked us to. Australians were outraged when they learnt that PwC partner Peter Collins harvested secret government information to advise massive global companies about how to avoid the government's upcoming tax avoidance laws. That firm made about $2.5 million from that advice. Because Senator Barbara Pocock has led the charge against these consultants—and because we do not take money from those big consultants and we've been fearless in pursuing them—so many of these scandals have been uncovered and we're in a position to take some reform. It's good that we're seeing a bill from the government referring to it, but it needs to go further. It's great to see Labor adopting some of the Greens policy, but it's disappointing that we keep individual penalties so low in this bill and that it's not applying to the breadth of companies that it should.

We want to be in position to have a discussion with the government about how we can improve this bill in the Senate. If the government tries to stop tactically wedging the Greens and actually works with us, it can get better legislation through parliament. We want to work to see how we can protect whistleblowers to ensure that this doesn't happen again, because this bill doesn't do enough to protect the whistleblowers. We want to protect whistleblowers, but this is probably going to be one of our best chances of fixing this, and we want to make sure we get it right so that this doesn't happen again. What we need in this country is to stop allowing the big corporations, via these consultants, to keep doing the work of government and making a lot of money out of it along the way and to, instead, restore our Public Service and reinvest in our Public Service. That's what we need to do—plus protect whistleblowers.

But, the government is so wedded to this, for reasons that no-one has explained. No-one has explained why these issues all need to be together in the one bill. It's just a transparent wedge. You can't even justify it, and they don't even try. Because the government is pushing all these things through together, including this really weak gas tax that's written by gas corporations themselves, we're going to be abstaining in the House and reserving our position in the Senate. The government needs to understand clearly that if you want to legislate you do it sensibly. Bring in pieces of legislation, and treat the Senate with respect. Don't try and wedge senators by putting things together that have nothing to do with each other. Don't try and wedge senators by putting enough pieces of legislation together that have got nothing to do with each other and saying, 'We're just hoping that you wouldn't notice that we're slipping through a tax that was written by the gas industry and that they're begging us to pass.' No—let's have separate discussions about how we deal with consultants and then, separately, what a fair share is to ask these gas corporations to pay.

I say to Labor that they seem to have missed the point that their vote went backwards at the last election. We now have a situation where less than a third of the country votes for the government, about a third of the country votes for the opposition and a third votes for someone else. Why? Because people want to see politicians tackling the big issues, not doing these pathetic wedges—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 18:24 to 18:59

I move:

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

"acknowledging 15 gas companies signed non-disclosure agreements when preparing Schedule 5 of this bill for the Government, the House:

(1) notes the billions of dollars in climate damage that the gas industry has already inflicted through turbocharged bushfires, floods and a 23 per cent reduction in agricultural profits, representing $29,200 in losses per Australian farm;

(2) acknowledges that the Australian Taxation Office has labelled the gas industry as 'systemic non-payers of tax';

(3) notes that the Parliamentary Budget Office has costed the potential revenue from repairing the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax at $94.5 billion over the decade;

(4) resolves that gas companies earning super profits from war should no longer avoid payment of super profits taxes; and

(5) calls on the Government to amend the bill to ensure a minimum doubling of revenue from the Government's proposed changes to the gas super profits tax".

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I don't rise to support the motion from the Leader of the Greens, but I do rise to support the motion moved by the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, the honourable member for Whitlam.

The PwC scandal that occurred exposed severe shortcomings in our regulatory frameworks that were largely ignored by those opposite. Today, we are taking significant steps to clean up the mess. The issue of PwC points to a wider problem of disdain for our tax laws and the large barriers that regulators face when trying to crack down on bad actors—companies that act in bad faith.

I particularly want to call out Senator Deborah O'Neill, from New South Wales, who did some incredible work in her committee to expose some of the shonky goings-on at PwC. But I also point out that the coalition's lack of action on this issue has caused a loss of faith in the systems that keep our tax arrangements and capital markets strong. We are cracking down on this misconduct as we must restore Australians' faith in these institutions. Everyday pay-as-you-go Australians deserve better and demand better. Labor will deliver better.

The strong and substantial action we're taking today builds on the work already underway to improve government processes in the wake of the PwC tax leaks scandal. It includes: new legislation to strengthen the Tax Practitioners Board, which was introduced into parliament earlier this year; a $30 million funding boost for the Tax Practitioners Board to increase compliance activities in the October 2023-24 budget; action to strengthen Commonwealth procurement frameworks by directing PwC to remove any staff involved with the confidentiality breach from the contract work until the outcomes of the Switkowski review are known and by enabling departments to terminate contracts with parties that receive adverse findings against them from a legal body.

It's clear that the coalition has missed opportunities when it comes to regulating the power of tax advisors. Tax agents and others who advise their clients to avoid Australia's tax laws in illegal ways must be penalised. Our current tax promoter penalty laws have remained largely untouched since their creation back in the early noughties, and they've only been applied merely six times.

Bigger penalties will reduce incentives to use confidential government information to help clients avoid tax. This bill will increase the maximum penalty that the Federal Court can impose on tax promoters, increase the time the ATO has to investigate and bring proceedings to the court for tax exploitation schemes and expand the scope of the promoter penalty laws.

These amendments enhance promoter penalty provisions and improve the ability of the ATO to target those tax promoters. They ensure promoters face material consequences for their actions, deterring them from promoting tax exploitation schemes and protecting their clients from the risks of tax shortfalls, penalties and interests. As time goes on, tax avoidance and evasion schemes become more complex, more bespoke and, sadly, more effective.

We must ensure that our policies are always evolving to tackle these changes and that legislation and legislators have the power to counter the complex schemes that are cooked up. We need to ensure that Australians have confidence in our tax system and that regulators have the tools necessary to go after those who break the rules. This bill would do just that and help to rebuild Australians' faith in our tax system.

It's important that those who report misconduct to our regulators feel safe and protected, so schedule 2 of this bill extends whistleblower protections to eligible whistleblowers who make disclosures to the Tax Practitioners Board where they believe the information may assist the TPB to perform its functions or duties. This proposal responds to a key recommendation of the independent review into that board and the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 by enabling the TPB to receive whistleblower disclosures and protect those who make such disclosures.

It's hard to protect against misconduct when those who know don't feel comfortable speaking out about it. It's vital that those who are willing to speak out about misconduct are given the best protections and support possible. This government is committed to restoring faith in our tax structures and making sure that the bad actors in the system are held to account, and whistleblowers are an essential part of that. I recommend a podcast dealing with whistleblowers if you want to hear some harrowing stories of great whistleblower action in Australia.

If we're to tackle the continual innovations of tax evaders, we need to make sure that our regulators have the right tools to identify and then discipline those who break the law. Schedule 3 of the bill gives the TPB more time to conduct formal investigations, improve the functions of the register and allow the TPB to delegate certain administrative functions. This measure will allow the TPB to publish details of its investigations and decisions in relation to findings of misconduct and sanctions on a searchable register, not dissimilar to solicitors in Queensland—and other jurisdictions, I'm sure. This information will then stay public for five years.

These changes will ensure that the public can be made aware of those trying to break the rules and will help to build confidence in our tax system by improving transparency in the tax profession. Allowing the TPB to delegate certain administrative tasks will free up vital time and resources that can then be used for going after the more complex and bespoke forms of tax avoidance that are enabled by certain tax practitioners.

The lack of ability to share information between departments was a key factor in why PwC were unable to be prosecuted for so long. Schedule 4 will amend the secrecy provisions in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to remove limitations in the tax secrecy laws that were a barrier to regulators acting in response to PwC's breach of confidence.

When the rules get broken, we need to make sure that the government has the tools and coordination to go after the rule breakers. This bill will make sure that our government is able to quickly and effectively react to a changing world and that large firms won't be able to swindle the tax system at the expense of everyday Australians—funds that could be used to build schools and roads, and to employ health practitioners.

The Albanese government is also making changes to the petroleum resource rent tax to address the findings of two comprehensive reviews that the PRRT is not operating as intended for the offshore LNG industry. To date, not a single LNG project has paid any PRRT, and most are not expected to pay significant amounts until the 2030s. That's about costs of development being able to offset over time. This measure will provide modest changes that will ensure LNG projects pay a minimum amount of PRRT—and sooner. This reflects Australia's commitment to being a reliable energy trade and investment partner.

The Albanese government will ensure that offshore LNG projects make a minimum payment sooner by introducing a cap on the use of deductions from 1 July this year. These changes will limit the proportion of PRRT-assessable income that can be offset by deductions to 90 per cent. This will ensure that LNG projects are paying a portion of the PRRT and will help to increase government tax receipts by approximately $2.4 billion over five years from the 2022-23 financial year.

This is a modest and fair change and pairs our commitment to having a return on our natural resources with the stability of targeted and efficient changes that will not affect business confidence. When large companies evade tax everybody suffers, and businesses who operate in Australia should be paying their fair share for all the benefits that come from having businesses set up in Australia. When tax practitioners use their position to enable the evasion of tax, good, sensible governments respond. We need to make sure that Australians have faith in our tax system, and this bill works to rebuild that faith.

We're committed to making sure that our regulators have teeth and that, when large corporations seek to circumvent our tax system, they're held to account. These measures represent the biggest crackdown on tax adviser misconduct in Australian history. So, when the going does get a bit tough, we don't shy away from these big challenges. The avoidance of tax by large multinationals is an issue that must be addressed. It's imperative for the future of the Australian taxation system that we look to address tax avoidance at every stage. Every dollar that is lost is a dollar that can't be used for vital projects and people in need. These lost dollars mean less infrastructure, less welfare and less wellbeing for everyday Australians.

The Albanese government will not stand by and let large multinationals walk away with Australia's future when they get the benefits of operating under the Australian umbrella—a safe, secure, rule-of-law jurisdiction. The PwC scandal exposed a fault in the system. As a government, we acted quickly and effectively to rectify that fault because that is what good, sensible governments do; that is what stable, strong governments do. We are dedicated to maintaining a robust, modern Australia, and keeping our tax system healthy is imperative in achieving that aim. A better future is what the Albanese government is all about, and this bill will help in creating that future. I commend the bill to the House.

The member for Moreton talks about good, sensible government, stable and strong. What a shame we don't have one.

An honourable member: Hear, hear!

Hear, hear, he says! I'll take that interjection. I was having a crack and he's actually agreed with me. At least we've attracted one more to our side, to our way of thinking. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill is sly politics. It's a move by Labor to merge legislative alterations to the tax consultant and practitioner industry, following the PricewaterhouseCoopers tax leaks scandal, with changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act.

I'm glad the member for Lingiari is here because I really want her to listen carefully to the comments I make about the Beetaloo basin, which is in her electorate and which our side of politics supports. The Northern Territory government, to its credit, supports the jobs and investment opportunities that the Beetaloo actually provides. The Beetaloo sub-basin, 500 kilometres south-east of Darwin, covers 28,000 square kilometres and is estimated to contain 500 trillion cubic feet of gas—500 trillion. I see the member for Lingiari nodding. I know she also supports investment opportunities, and I know she wants the Northern Territory to be the best it can be. I like the member for Lingiari. I think she's a good and decent member.

We heard a little earlier, just prior to the member for Moreton, the leader of the Greens, the member for Melbourne, going on about gas and the evils thereof. I appreciate he's put in some amendments to this legislation. Recently, his deputy leader, Senator Mehreen Faruqi, talked about her recent visit to her country of birth, Pakistan. This is what she told the Senate:

Australia's criminal inaction on climate is deeply felt there—felt in the extreme heat, felt in the melting glaciers washing away entire villages and felt in the everyday life of children in Pakistan who are suffocating in an ever deadly mix of intense heat and trapped pollution.

With that in mind, I looked up to see what Pakistan's greenhouse emissions are, the amount of greenhouse gases they put into the globe. What do you think they are? They're 0.9 per cent. Australia's are just over one per cent. I mean, what planet is she on? Seriously! What I would really like to hear sometime, some way, some days from the Greens is just a bit of positivity about Australia—just a smidge; just a tiny little bit—an infinitesimal amount of positivity about this nation and about what the Northern Territory's potential is. The Northern Territory's potential—and I've been there on many, many occasions—is unlimited, and so is northern Australia's. Yet whether it's Beetaloo, Bowen or whatever gas field in Australia, we find that the Greens just don't want to invest in them.

We had a situation where the Victorian Labor government—how they keep getting re-elected is anyone's guess—wanted to ban onshore and offshore gas. Well, we're going to need some sort of energy to be able to power our kitchen appliances, our homes, our industries, our factories and our farms. The way we're going, if we listen to the Greens and we listen to the Leader of the Greens or his deputy, we'll shut everything down. They want every industry shut down. I know that schedule 5 of this bill relates to the PRRT gas project changes. While we are moving towards more renewables in the system—and that is fine, provided it doesn't come at a cost to agriculture or to the arable farmland—we only have 10 per cent of arable farmland on the surface of the earth, and we can't afford to lose too much more, or any more, given the fact that we've got a growing global population and need to be able to feed them. Too many children in particular go to bed with empty stomachs; it's just not right. Yet here we've got the Greens siding with Labor.

There was a very awkward press conference just this Monday with the member for Sydney—the water minister—and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who has never been a friend of farmers, agreeing on the changes to the Murray-Darling Basin. We need that plan to allow for farmers to have productive water and we need to not be taking a Sydney Harbour's worth of water away from farmers. We should be thanking our farmers three times a day every day because they grow the food that we eat, they grow the food that we export and they grow the food that provides for plenty of kids who don't live in Australia to make sure that they go to bed with a full stomach.

When you talk about gas, there's this demonisation of gas projects in this country which is beyond belief. Gas provides energy. Gas provides jobs. Gas provides investment. It happens in the Northern Territory, it happens in Queensland and it should happen right across the nation. Western Australia has shown us just how that state has become a powerhouse, from federation to now, on the back of the mining resources boom. It is a powerhouse exporter and a powerhouse of providing hope and opportunity for countries to which we export our energy, and so it should be.

With Labor deciding to justify changes to PRRT amendments, this bill will effectively cap the availability of deductible expenditure incurred by a person in relation to a petroleum project for a year of tax. I know the Greens leader went on about the big mining companies paying no tax; well, they employ a lot of people, and yes they do pay tax. But he would have them shut down, so he wouldn't have them employing anybody. The coalition has asked the Treasurer and his office for further detail of the proposal. We have made practical suggestions, unlike the Greens, to ensure that projects, investments and jobs in the gas sector are protected and promoted. Heaven forbid our school children be told the truth, and that is that gas projects have provided so much of the energy which powers their classrooms and so much of the energy which has enabled their schools to be funded and their parents' jobs to be protected. Gas and the other resources sector, which is all too often played down in this place, should be admired, promoted, promulgated and protected. The Treasurer's office has refused to respond to the coalition's very practical questions and very meaningful suggestions.

I hate to say it, but this is characteristic of Labor playing politics by deceit—they do. By tying problematic changes to the gas industry together with the widely supported changes to the tax industry, without answering what we felt was an olive branch of bipartisanship, it just goes to show what Labor's motives are, and, unfortunately, they are not in the national interest. It's just like how the Greens trying to shutdown our mining sector is not in the national interest. How on earth do the Greens think that we're going to pay for the schools, the roads, the hospitals and all the rest of the things that have made and given us such a quality of life? Yet this is typical Greens policy. They shout from the rooftops about one side of the Middle Eastern debate, and they want paedophiles, rapists and murderers released into the public with—for God's sake—an ankle bracelet. If you're being raped, that's really going to protect you! And then they call them refugees. It defies logic and it makes me so cross when you see some of the nonsense that is spouted by Greens members and senators.

What we see in this piece of legislation is a case study in how not to do things properly. There's a lack of seriousness in this government, which is endemic of most of what they do. As far back as May, the government announced its changes to the PRRT. As far back as May—about 12 months after getting into power. We've asked questions of the government. Do we have answers to those basic questions? No, we don't. Has the government engaged seriously with the coalition, or any other party for that matter, to progress this legislation? No. By attaching the $2.6 billion gas tax measures to the response to the PwC and Tax Practitioners Board scandal—or leak, call it what you like—the Treasurer's demonstrated that he is more focused on politics than outcomes. This is the same Treasurer who stood at the despatch box to deliver his May budget and became the first Treasurer in a quarter of a century to not use the word 'infrastructure'.

But they don't care about infrastructure, and we saw that when, prior to the budget, the member for Ballarat, minister for infrastructure, announced a 90-day review. Jules Verne wrote a book about going around the world in 80 days, but it took the infrastructure minister 200 or so days to finally announce her review. The review included savage cuts, which are now being disparaged by, of all people, the Labor premiers and treasurers from Queensland—your state, Deputy Speaker Young—New South Wales and Victoria. Annastacia Palaszczuk, Chris Minns and Jacinta Allan, respectively, are justified in their condemnation of just that.

Today, we had the unedifying spectacle of Steven Miles—handsome fellow that he is. He's not an unedifying spectacle as far as looks and image are concerned, but he shouldn't have needed to be in the federal parliament today. He should be in Queensland doing his job, but the Deputy Premier of Queensland has had to come to Canberra with at least four mayors of regional councils—Western Downs, Ipswich, Toowoomba and Isaac Regional—to argue the case for infrastructure for Queensland. It's one of our powerhouse states—a state which should be helping to lead the economic recovery, but, no, he's here arguing the toss about infrastructure with the member for Ballarat. When your own Labor premiers, deputy premiers, treasurers, roads ministers and transport ministers are condemning their federal Labor colleague, you know things are crook in Tallarook. You really do. But not just Tallarook—everywhere around the nation. Labor will come to the argument and say, 'Yes, but they pork barrelled, and they had colour coded spreadsheets.' Unfortunately, this mob has colour coded spreadsheets, but they're all red. They're all red for Labor, and so many projects out of envy, jealousy—I don't know what you'd call it.

But, even for the member for Lingiari, they should be supporting and engaging in enabling roads for the Beetaloo basin, and they should be supporting the Northern Territory with more infrastructure. I support Lingiari. 'It's happening,' the member for Lingiari says. Well it should be happening even more because your Territory holds the key to unlocking so much investment, hope, opportunity and reward for our nation and for our nation's coffers—the sorts of coffers that we need to fill to pay for hospitals, albeit ones run by states, and to pay for roads, many of which should be paid for by states, but only in a 20 per cent arrangement. That's what it is when the coalition's in; it's 20 per cent states and 80 per cent coalition. But, no, this mob wants fifty-fifty, and that's why the premiers of all these various Labor states are so filthy—and with every reason.

But I'll get back to this legislation. The behaviour of PwC that the Tax Practitioners Board unveiled over recent times plainly does not meet community standards. This legislation amends that. That's to be commended. Labor should have been more direct, more open, more transparent and more honest with the coalition. Our changes, our suggested moves and measures, on this bill and PRRT—I'm not sure why they've connected the two. It's like connecting Carlton and Collingwood and thinking that'd be a good merger. Go figure. But that's the Labor government. Unfortunately, they'll probably get it through. I just hope they get it through without the help or support of the Greens—or without the Greens amendments, because they are rubbish.

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:27