Alison Penfold

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Lyne presenting a Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into the behaviour, practices and performance of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and

(3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.

As the Nationals member for Lyne, I rise to speak not just about this bill but about what is at stake for the people, towns, farms, businesses and communities of the Murray-Darling Basin. As one of the inaugural independent directors of the Riverine Plains Farming Systems Group, which operates across southern New South Wales and north-eastern Victoria, the issue of water rights and access is critical. As a farming extension and research development body, for most of its projects there needed to be water in the right place at the right time to ensure that projects could proceed, be tested, be verified and be turned into practical advice for growers and farmers.

Across the Murrumbidgee, the Riverina and the basin, water policy is not theoretical. It's not abstract. It's about the health of catchments, town water security and flood preparedness. It's about the viability of our growers, producers and farmers—whether they're in dairy, beef, horticulture, mixed farming or cropping—who rely on predictable water rules and practical on-ground management. It is the difference between a town and a community growing or slowly fading away. Right now, people in those communities are asking a very simple question: who is standing up for them when it comes to water?

This bill, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Commission of Inquiry Bill 2026, goes directly to that question. It establishes a commission of inquiry into the behaviour, practices and performance of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the CEWH. It will examine the management, use and outcomes of Commonwealth environmental water holdings, whether they are delivering real ecological outcomes and, critically, what impact those decisions are having on agricultural productivity, regional economies and basin communities.

Let me be very clear: this is scrutiny that is long overdue. Under this Albanese Labor government, water policy has become increasingly opaque, increasingly centralised and increasingly disconnected from the people who live and work on the land. Labor likes to talk about 'environmental water' as if that label alone gives it a social licence. But communities in the basin know better. They know that behind that label are decisions—real decisions—that affect river flows, irrigation allocations, land values and ultimately livelihoods.

The CEWH is not some passive observer. It's one of the largest water holders in the country. It decides when water is delivered, where it goes, whether it is traded and whether it is carried over. Those decisions shape markets, they shape river systems and they shape communities. So why is it that, under this government, scrutiny of those decisions has become harder, not easier? Why is it that communities are too often told what has happened after the fact, instead of being properly consulted before decisions are made? And why is it that farmers and regional businesses are expected to comply with strict rules, metering and reporting, yet, when it comes to the Commonwealth, transparency is treated as optional? Let me say this again: irrigators are required to account for every drop of water without fail, yet the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is not. That is a double standard this bill seeks to address.

What we are hearing loud and clear from basin communities is that trust is breaking down. Stakeholders are asking basic practical questions: What watering action is proposed? What does success look like? What risks are being taken? What impacts will there be on private land, infrastructure and local communities? Too often, they are simply not being told. Instead, they're getting bureaucratic language, delayed reporting and decisions that seem to prioritise Canberra over communities. This matters because environmental watering done poorly has real consequences. It can cause bank slumping. It can put pressure on private crossings and pumps. It can waterlog productive land. It can damage private infrastructure. It can put pressure on local roads and councils. None of that is an argument against environmental outcomes; it's an argument against bad policy and poor implementation. And that is exactly what communities across the Murray-Darling Basin are reacting to right now.

This bill comes at a time when some of the basin community and those in the electorate of Farrer are facing a by-election. Let me be clear, this by-election is a referendum on the Albanese Labor government's approach to regional Australia, and nowhere is that clearer than in water policy. What people in Farrer are seeing is a government that keeps shifting the goalposts, a government that keeps expanding Commonwealth control over water and a government that talks about balance but delivers policies that hollow out irrigation communities and undermine confidence in the future. Businesses cannot plan; farmers cannot invest; families cannot make long-term decisions. Why? Because they do not trust that the rules will stay the same, and trust once lost is very hard to rebuild. That is why this bill is so important, because it does not just add another review; it establishes a targeted, agile and urgent independent commission of inquiry with real powers. It can compile documents. It can test evidence. It can hear directly from communities and experts. And it will report to this parliament, not just to the government of the day. That is a core difference from a royal commission.

The commission will examine the size and composition of the CEWH's holdings; how watering priorities are set; how decisions are implemented in practice; whether environmental outcomes are actually being achieved; the impacts on third parties, on farmers, irrigators, councils and communities; and the CEWH's trading behaviour and governance and accountability arrangements. These are not academic questions. They go to the heart of whether the Basin Plan is being implemented in a way that is fair, transparent and effective. Water uses comply with complex rules, metering and reporting because the community expects integrity in water management. That expectation must apply equally to the Commonwealth. When the Commonwealth holds and moves water, it should be subject to clear reporting, independent audit and strong scrutiny. It is also important that the commission is credible with commissioners that have the right mix of expertise and lived understanding of basin communities and river operations. It also means terms of reference that get to the heart of the issue and processes that give stakeholders confidence they will be heard.

The government will say that there are already reviews underway—and, yes, there is a review fatigue in basin communities; communities are tired of being consulted without being heard—but this bill is different. It's not another broad bureaucratic exercise; it's a focused inquiry into one of the most powerful actors in the water system, the Commonwealth itself. If the government is confident in its approach, it should welcome that scrutiny. Scrutiny is not a threat; scrutiny is a safeguard. It's a safeguard for the farmers who rely on predictable water rules. It's a safeguard for the towns that depend on agriculture. And it's a safeguard for the environment itself, because good environmental outcomes depend on good governance.

The explanatory memorandum says that this bill has no financial impact. But let's be honest: the real cost has already been paid. It's been paid for by communities that have seen water taken out of production without clear outcomes. It's been paid for by businesses that cannot plan for the future. And it's been paid for by families who are wondering whether their towns have a future at all. That is what is at stake, and that is why, in the context of the Farrer by-election, this issue resonates so strongly. People are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness. They are asking for transparency. They are asking for a government that understands that water policy is not just about environmental targets, it's about people. This bill is about restoring that balance. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Tony Pasin

The motion is seconded. In seconding the motion, I take this opportunity to thank the member for Lyne for bringing this matter to the place and congratulate her for the outstanding contribution she just made.

I want to take you back. It's 2012 and I had been asked to be the Liberal candidate in the seat of Barker. That included the communities of the Riverland. As a young person living in Mount Gambier on a family farm I'd spent my fair share of time moving irrigation pipes. In fact, for as long as I can remember I was moving those pipes, or, indeed, from the point at which I could lift one, so I understood the importance of irrigation to farming entities. To be fair, I wasn't someone who'd spent a lot of time in the Riverland, but I was keen to correct that.

I remember one day I was in the Riverland driving along and I saw a strange sight near the bank of a river adjacent to a farm. It was an elderly man digging a trench from the river to a point. It piqued my curiosity. I stopped. I walked down and asked to speak to the man. He was a man in his 80s and he was digging a ditch from the river to a red gum. He said, 'Son, I'm digging this in the shadows of the millennium drought to make sure this tree survives.' In that moment I knew the people of the Riverland, farmers in those communities, care deeply about the environment. This was an elderly man who, quite frankly, should not have been digging at all, let alone that ditch. That is why the people of my electorate are so incredibly disappointed when they see that the sacrifices they make to ensure water has transferred from productive use to environmental benefit is not being treated with the same respect or all the requirements that have to be occasioned onto irrigators themselves.

The people of the Riverland want the CEWH to succeed. They want environmental outcomes, because otherwise that elderly gentleman would never have been there at the end of a long shovel. That's why this motion is so important. That's why this commission is important. We have to give the two million Australians who live within the basin confidence that the water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is being put to the best environmental use, that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is meeting the same sort of transparency and governance that irrigators themselves have to face.

It's not enough, as the member for Lyne said, to say, 'This is environmental water, so of course that's good.' It's only providing a social good if it provides the environmental outcome. Too often my constituents, and I expect others who live and work and represent areas in the basin would have heard this as well, ring me to say: 'Tony, what are they doing? They're irrigating in the middle of summer, in the middle of the day. It's a complete waste.' That's why this commission is so important, so we can hold decision-makers to account.

This is a significant capital asset that is held on trust for every Australian. Whether you live in the basin or not, you're a shareholder in that capital held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. That asset, in a continent as dry as ours, is just so valuable. It was Mark Twain who said, 'Whisky's for drinking, but water's for fighting over.' In that context, this water, this precious environmental water, needs to be managed appropriately. That's why this commission is so important. We need to ensure that people living and working in the basin have the confidence that that shareholding, that capital asset that's held on trust for every single Australian including everyone in this building, is being managed appropriately. It's only with that kind of transparency, that kind of accountability, that we will deliver that trust. And, by the way, without that trust, the work of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder will fail because it will lose political will.

Tony Burke

Those who have spoken in the debate are people who know the basin well, and so some of what I go through now is for the benefit of members generally. I don't want this to be seen by those who have had much of their livelihood or some or all of their livelihood within the basin as me explaining it to them, but I think there are some facts about water that, for the benefit of the House and the operation of the plan, are helpful for me to lay out. I do this in that context.

In the first instance—and I'm always troubled by the acronym CHEW because the letters aren't in that order, but anyway. It's the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder which was established under the Water Act. The office is actually a creation of the Howard government. The concept when the Water Act was brought in and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder was established, in the face of an acknowledgement from the Howard government and supported by our side in opposition, was that the river system had been overallocated to death. The concerns that were put by the member for Barker, in terms of people living within the basin wanting the system to be healthy, are something that has been acknowledge and acknowledged really strongly.

There is a regular characteristic within the basin that people will generally acknowledge overallocation for the water entitlements that are given to their north, effectively. In areas like the Riverland—I spent time in the Riverland when I was putting the basin plan together—there was a view back then, which I presume is still the view but I haven't ground-truthed it recently, that people were concerned that there was overallocation in catchments further north and higher up in the system. That certainly was the view back then. I remember the view by the member for Groom back at the time before he went off to his current minerals job—

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question now is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lyne be agreed to.

Andrew Gee

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Calare presenting a bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and

(3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.

Today I introduce to this House the Fair Fuel Price Bill 2026. It is a bill which would allow the Commonwealth government to temporarily regulate fuel prices during periods of extraordinary global disruption, such as war or similar crises. It would allow the minister, in particular the Treasurer, to make fuel price determinations that impose price controls on unleaded petrol and/or diesel. It needs to be considered urgently, because our country is in the midst of a devastating fuel crisis. Both country and city communities are being pummelled by these skyrocketing prices. It's smashing our local businesses, and it's stinging everyone from families to pensioners.

Urgent action is required. Leadership is required, and it is required now. The Fair Fuel Price Bill would reintroduce fuel price controls of the type ushered in during the Second World War to Australia. In 1939 this parliament passed the National Security Act, which gave the Australian government the power to set fuel prices for the duration of that conflict. It was aimed at preventing price gouging, and it was effective. This Fair Fuel Price Bill also gives the government the power to set fuel prices for the duration of the current conflict in the Middle East. Our communities are crying out for action, and they expect their leaders to be leading with tangible solutions, not just cheap talk.

Sky-high prices are throttling our community members and businesses. Our farmers can't get the diesel they need to get their crops in the ground. When they can get diesel, they are paying through the nose for it. Without action, this fuel crisis could very quickly spiral into a food security price crisis. As of yesterday, 51 service stations across New South Wales had completely run out of fuel, while a further 164 sites had no diesel available. Today apparently there are about 630 stations across the nation running out of fuel. People living in the bush have been putting up with the price gouging of country motorists for years, with enormous disparities between city and country fuel prices. The difference can be as high as 40c a litre. Mudgee has been a hot spot for years for price gouging. In Yeoval today, they're paying just over $3.30 for diesel. That's well above the city price. In Bathurst today, it's $3.20.

This latest war in the Middle East has again brought the issue of price gouging into stark relief. The government needs a taskforce to tell it if there is price gouging occurring, but our communities do not. They're tired of all the talk and no action. We need decisive leadership. The ABC's Alan Kohler recently pointed out that Australian retail petrol prices have risen to levels higher than in 2022, even though global crude oil prices have not returned to those peaks. He points out that this discrepancy indicates that retail margins have expanded significantly. In other words, it points to price gouging.

This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to introduce section 51 AG relating to fuel price determinations. Section 1 empowers the minister, being the Treasurer, to make a legislative instrument establishing price controls for unleaded petrol and/or diesel supplied in constitutional trade and commerce. Subsection (2) defines such an instrument as a fuel price determination. Subsection (3) provides a safeguard by requiring that the minister must be satisfied that fuel prices have increased due to a war or similar crisis before making a determination. This ensures that the power is only exercised in exceptional circumstances. Subsection (4) requires the minister—that is, the Treasurer—to consult with the Prime Minister prior to making a determination ensuring high level oversight. Subsection (5) requires that the minister must revoke a fuel price determination once satisfied that the relevant war or crisis has ended, ensuring that price controls are temporary.

This fuel crisis is hitting our businesses, it's hitting our families, it's hitting our pensioners, it's hitting our country workforce, and, because country residents have further distances to travel, sky-high fuel prices have a disproportionately harsh and damaging effect on country communities. Here is just one example: Christie, a nurse who lives in the Canowindra area and works at Orange, says, 'The financial strain has become overwhelming. As an assistant in nursing earning $26.61 an hour, I commute an hour each way to work. With current fuel prices, it is no longer financially viable for me to continue in my role. Despite working full-time, I have been forced to take on a second job just to survive. Even then, I was left with only $2.30 in my account this week after paying my mortgage. I am currently limiting myself to one meal a day so that my children can have three.' She's also completing her bachelor of nursing and says, 'The cost of fuel now threatens my ability to complete mandatory placements.' She says, 'The situation is unsustainable. Nurses are being pushed to the brink, and the consequences are being felt by the communities we serve.' You couldn't get a more pertinent testimony about how this price gouging is affecting country communities.

I have received an email by a parent in our electorate who reports that, with respect to schooling, this week they have been told that certain excursions will need to be curtailed because fuel is too expensive or hard to come by for the buses, and families are unable to cover the increasing cost of transport to excursion and sporting events, with household bills and interest rates continuing to rise. The correspondence goes on and on. The pain is real and it is being compounded because, in our part of the world, the Great Western Highway is closed. On the weekend I spoke to Ken Muldoon from Little Hartley. He runs a family haulage company and told me about the massive impacts that the skyrocketing fuel prices and the closure of the Great Western Highway are having on his business. It's twice the cost because of fuel, twice the time because of the highway closure and half the profit, and he makes it very clear that it's just not sustainable.

As I've said, if farmers can't get the diesel they need, the crops cannot be planted and, if the crops can't be planted, this nation does not eat; it's as simple as that. Many farmers have contacted me with examples of them placing orders for diesel for on-farm fuel, and their suppliers have just failed to turn up. It just doesn't arrive when they need it. We need to control these prices and the fuel supply for country Australia. The government's recent initiatives don't go far enough. The ACCC does not have sufficient power. The government wants to increase penalties for price gouging, but I don't think that is going to do very much at all, with all due respect to the government, because there have only been a handful of successful prosecutions for petrol price gouging over the last 20 years. We have been fighting price gouging in the Mudgee area for a long time, and, when we raise it with the government, they say, 'Go and see the ACCC.' We have a meeting with the ACCC. They meet with us with good faith and with the best will in the world but nothing happens. We're sick of it. Our country communities are sick of it. They are being strangled by these sky-high prices, and we want some positive action, not just window-dressing. Increasing penalties for price gouging is going to do nothing if you can't actually prosecute them properly. And we've hardly seen any successful prosecutions. That's the problem with the government's approach.

We don't need a taskforce out there to tell us that price gouging is occurring. Ask anyone out there. You've heard the emails; you've heard from our constituents. Many members have come into this place and told stories of the pain and suffering that is being inflicted on families and pensioners and businesses because of these skyrocketing fuel prices. Well, we need some leadership, and this is the moment to take it. This bill should be used as part of a suite of measures to control these skyrocketing prices. Look, during COVID, the fuel excise was halved for six months. Why is the government not doing this again?

Communities around our nation are at breaking point. Decisive action is needed to stop the gouging and deliver fair fuel prices to the Australian public. I urge all members of this House to come in now, support this bill and deliver urgent and badly needed price relief to the Australian public.

Scott Buchholz

Is the motion seconded?

Dai Le

I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Calare. This proposal goes to the heart of what millions of Australians are feeling right now. Across Western Sydney, diesel and petrol are surging towards $3 a litre, and, as the member for Calare just mentioned, in Bathurst, it's at $3.20. Rocketing fuel prices are hitting families and small businesses first, and they are being hurt the most.

Yesterday I asked the Treasurer a very simple question: why won't this government halve the fuel excise at least for six months to help Australians through this crisis? I did not get an answer that would reassure any parent at the bowser this morning. I did not get an answer that would reassure any small business owner trying to keep their vans and trucks on the road. What I heard was a government that is prepared to sit on its hands while Australians are pummelled by prices they simply cannot escape.

Families and small business in Fowler in south-west Sydney and right across Western Sydney—and, of course, in regional areas—are being crushed by the cost-of-living crisis. They are not trimming luxuries or excess; they're actually being hit by non-negotiable bills. They have to fill their tank to drive to work. They have to pay their high energy bill costs. They have to pay for increased food. These are all the things that they have to do. In my electorate of Fowler, driving is not a luxury. It's not a lifestyle choice. It is a necessity. Public transport is terrible. We don't have proper public transport. Many workers start before dawn and finish late at night. They are frontline workers. They are aged-care workers, warehouse workers, truckies, cleaners, delivery drivers, tradies. They keep the country running and simply cannot work from home. They cannot drive less. Every time fuel jumps by 10c to 20c, it is a direct pay cut for them.

While this is happening, the Commonwealth government is doing very well, thank you. On every litre of petrol and diesel, more than 50c goes straight to Canberra, plus the GST as well. Last year alone, the government raked in around $27 million in fuel excise. Surely a six-month halving of the fuel excise—which cost the Morrison government approximately $5.6 billion when they did it in 2022—is not an impossible ask off the back of such a profit.

That is why I have been calling consistently for a temporary halving of the fuel excise. It is one of the simplest, fastest levers the Commonwealth can pull. It is deflationary while it is in place, because it brings down one of the key prices feeding into everything else. It does not require an application form. It does not require a means test. It does not carve Australians into winners and losers. It helps everyone who has to fill a tank—workers, families, small businesses, regional communities. This is not a boutique program for one sector; this is relief for the majority of working Australians.

With petrol and diesel rocketing towards $3 a litre—and, as we heard, $3.20 in Bathurst—the Albanese government refuses to budge. It is as if they think that the crisis at the bowser is somehow less real than the crisis at the supermarket checkout or in the mortgage statement. But talk to any family in Fowler—in Liverpool, Cabramatta, Fairfield or Canley Heights—and they will tell you fuel is the bill that makes every other bill worse. This is why the member for Calare's bill to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is so important. It is about ensuring that, in times of genuine crisis—and we are having a genuine crisis at the moment, with global conflicts, supply shocks and market failures sending prices spiralling—the Australian government can step in to take control of fuel prices and protect the public. We already accept that in a natural disaster or pandemic, government must act quickly in the national interest. A fuel price shock that is pushing families to the brink is no different.

Taking control in a crisis does not mean micromanaging every servo every day. It means having clear powers and clear triggers so that when prices are exploding, like they are now, when they're barrelling towards $3 a litre and beyond, governments can intervene to cap the damage, prevent gouging and back temporary tax relief like a fuel excise cut. It means recognising that fuel is not a luxury; it is the backbone of how our economy moves, how our people get to work and how our supply chains function. For this reason, I strongly support the member for Calare's motion to suspend the standing orders so that this bill to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 can be debated and voted on today. Australians cannot wait. Families in Fowler and across Western Sydney cannot wait. The time for reviews and excuses is over; the time for real, immediate action is now. I second the motion.

Peter Khalil

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Zali Steggall

() (): I move:

That the bill be reconsidered in detail.

Milton Dick

No problem. We just needed to get through that. I'll just explain to the House what's happening—what has occurred and what will happen now. Standing order 154 states:

Before the third reading of a bill is moved, a Member may move without notice that a bill be reconsidered in detail, in whole or in part, by the House.

That is what the member for Warringah has now done. I'll put that question.

Question agreed to.

Zali Steggall

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A After section 7

Insert:

7AA Climate change considerations

(1) The Facility must not provide a grant of financial assistance unless doing so is consistent with:

(a) the Climate Change Act 2022; and

(b) the objective of reducing Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.

(2) The Facility must not provide a grant of financial assistance to any gas facility.

(3) In subsection (2), gas facility includes a pipeline.

7AB First Nations consultation

In deciding whether to provide a grant of financial assistance, the Facility must consult with First Nations Australians.

As I indicated in my second reading speech, whilst I very much support the purpose of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026 and its extension and it is essential that northern Australia have access to finance beneficial finance capacity to do a very important projects, it is nevertheless important that any spending that we do in such significant spending be consistent with all of our legislations and commitments, in particular commitments from the Albanese government. The amendments circulated seek to make clear the prohibition of the funding of fossil fuel facilities, including gas, via the NAIF.

Let's be really clear. Prohibiting the funding of fossil fuel facilities, including gas pipelines, through the NAIF is important. Why? Because taxpayer backed finance should not be socialising the risk of projects that worsen the climate crisis while privatising the returns, because we know that the gas industry are highly profitable sectors, they are making superprofits. They do not need beneficial financing assistance or public funding when it comes to infrastructure investment, especially when they do not then share the windfalls with the Australian people.

I've had this battle before. In 2021 my amendment expressly sought to stop the NAIF funding fossil fuel based infrastructure, including natural gas infrastructure. The principle was right then, and it is right now. We also know this is not abstract. The NAIF has previously supported gas link projects, including the Hudson Creek Power Station, a 12-megawatt gas power plant backed by a $37 million NAIF loan, and hybrid solar gas projects in the Pilbara. So, when the government says, 'Trust us,' the answer is, 'The record does not justify blind trust.' If a project is commercially sound with such advanced and mature industries as the gas industry, let it stand on its own balance sheet and obtain its own finance without dipping in to the public purse. If it requires public subsidy to proceed, parliament is entitled—indeed obliged—to ask whether that subsidy is in the public interest. In 2026 subsidising new fossil fuel infrastructure, in particular gas and gas pipelines, is not in the public interest.

My other amendment is to ensure that the NAIF funding is consistent with commitment to net zero by 2050 and the Climate Change Act 2022. The second amendment will require those funding decisions to be consistent with those legislated climate frameworks. The Climate Change Act 2022 puts into law Australia's targets of 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. These are essential commitments to make sure we protect and preserve the Australian way of life and the safety of so many Australians. If a project locks in emissions, delays transition or creates infrastructure that depends on decades of fossil fuel use, then parliament should not pretend that this is neutral. If the NAIF is to run to 2036, it must be anchored to the legal and economic reality of Australia's net zero transition. These are all mature technologies that make superprofits; they do not need further subsidies by the government.

Thirdly, my amendment seeks to make consultation with First Nations Australians during funding decision-making processes mandatory. This amendment requires mandatory consultation with First Nations Australians during funding decision-making. The NAIF currently requires only an Indigenous engagement strategy as part of mandatory eligibility criteria. What's been reported to me is that too often that is a tick-a-box exercise; it is not genuine community consultation. Whilst it's good that there is something, it is not enough. The current framework is better than nothing, but it's not the standard that this parliament should settle for. I would argue for the government to have a very clear requirement for consultation with First Nations Australians, whose lands too often are the ones impacted by the very projects that are seeking funding under the NAIF. This is the bare minimum that should be done by this government.

I commend these amendments to the House to improve the NAIF and make sure it is robust funding into the future that serves all Australians and is consistent with our public interest.

Sharon Claydon

Is there a seconder for this amendment?

Kate Chaney

I second the amendment.

Madeleine King

I thank the member for Warringah for her participation in this debate and the amendments she's proposed. I will address the second amendment first. The NAIF Investment Mandate contains six mandatory criteria that proponents are required to meet to achieve NAIF finance. Supporting economic empowerment and meaningful engagement with First Nations Australians is a priority shared by the government, and the amendment which the member proposes that the NAIF must first consult First Nations Australians when considering financial assistance is already part of the operation of the NAIF. The NAIF has robust and mandatory mechanisms to achieve this.

Under the NAIF's governance framework, all proponents are required to develop and implement an Indigenous engagement strategy as a condition of financial assistance. The proposed amendment requires NAIF to consult First Nations Australians before providing financial assistance. In practice, NAIF's current requirements already go further than that, because engagement occurs by project proponents, where it can be most effective and specific. Project proponents must demonstrate alignment with community expectations and outcomes before NAIF will consider investment approval, and the Investment Mandate and statement of expectations already require it to support key government priorities, including materially improving the lives of First Nations peoples and communities in northern Australia.

While the government respects the intent behind the amendment, it will not be supporting changes that duplicate or complicate an already effective and well-established framework. The government will continue to ensure that NAIF maintains high standards of Indigenous engagement, supports opportunities for Indigenous economic development and works collaboratively with First Nations organisations, including traditional owners, local Indigenous businesses and land councils.

I'll reflect briefly on the small loans program of the NAIF. It is indeed designed with First Nations communities in mind to make sure they are enabled to get this concessional finance for important projects in their communities.

I return now to the first amendment. The government will be opposing that amendment. In 2024, the government updated the NAIF Investment Mandate to ensure that potential projects aligned with a number of policy priorities. The ones relevant here are sustainability, climate change and circular economy principles and solutions in northern Australia, and materially improving the lives of Indigenous peoples and communities. That refers to your second amendment. The bill strengthens the board's accountability to this investment mandate by requiring that the board notify the responsible ministers if the NAIF fails to comply with that mandate so we can take corrective action.

The statement of expectations, which I provided in December 2022, noted the government's priority to transition Australia's energy sector to net zero emissions by 2050 and that the NAIF has a key role in contributing to this in northern Australia. The NAIF has supported multiple renewable energy projects, as well as including critical minerals projects that are vital for renewable technologies and for national security. The Climate Change Act 2022 introduced changes to the NAIF Act to ensure alignment with Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Energy projects are designed to support and strengthen the electricity system on the way to net zero, not as a long-term replacement for renewables but as a stabilising force during the all-important transition, which we support and have legislated. Investment in energy projects assists in supplying electricity to communities where there are shortfalls in renewable generation and prices spike in consequence of that. It's important that any energy transition provides for firming capacity to complement renewables. Grid stability is critical for all communities. Whilst renewable generation batteries and pumped hydro are progressively built right across the country, firming capacity and grid stability help to contain price spikes for households and industry and, of course, make sure people have lights in those communities. So we don't support the amendments, but I do thank the member for her thoughtfulness in this debate.

Bob Katter

The last thing in the world we want in this country is for people in Sydney to be telling us what we should and shouldn't do on the land where we live. We live there because we love the land. That's why we live there, right? People who are living in Sydney obviously don't love the natural wonderland of Australia. I can't see how that is compatible with you living in Sydney.

Your stupidity and irresponsibility means it will be on my watch that the cassowaries of Australia vanish. I will be remembered in history as the member of parliament for the area where the cassowaries vanished. The reason they're vanishing is that there's an estimated three million pigs in national parks in North Queensland—which I think is exaggerated, but there's no doubt that you can't go into the national parks without seeing wild pigs—and the pigs have nothing to eat except the cassowary eggs. The pig numbers are exploding because there are no natural predators for the pigs in the jungles of North Queensland. I'm sitting here watching the cassowaries being wiped out because of the stupidity of so-called greenies in this place. That's the cassowaries.

The pigs also eat the turtle eggs, so the North Queensland turtle is also doomed. You protected the crocodiles. Well, there were little children of Bamaga—one was seen to be torn to pieces by a crocodile, and another little children two vanished at exactly the same spot. Maybe you like little children being torn to pieces by crocodiles, I don't know, but for your stupidity—the crocodile lays 60 eggs—

Scott Buchholz

I just remind the honourable member that when you're making the reference 'your stupidity' you're referring to the chair. So I would just ask you to rephrase that to 'the honourable member', please. And I would ask you just to stay relevant to the amendment, if I could, honourable member for Kennedy.

Long debate text truncated.

Nicolette Boele

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 35), after section 84E, insert:

84EA Issue of additional humanitarian visas

(1) Each year, the Minister must issue an additional number of humanitarian visas that is equal to the number of visas affected by an arrival control determination in the previous year.

(2) In this section, humanitarian visa means:

(a) a global special humanitarian visa (subclass 202); or

(b) a refugee visa (subclass 200, 201, 203 or 204).

Here we are again, debating an urgent bill that this government wants to introduce and pass through this place the day after introducing it. This government's track record on ramming migration amendments through parliament with no proper debate and no parliamentary scrutiny is very disappointing. It's true that sometimes there are circumstances which require urgent action. This is not one of them. Passing legislation in haste with no consultation, a curtailment of debate and a complete lack of committee scrutiny makes a mockery of our parliamentary, and therefore our democratic, processes.

My amendment to this bill does something very simple. It responds to the basic intent of the bill, which is to suspend temporary visas already issued to people from certain identified inconvenient locations. My amendment requires that, once the immigration minister takes that step, the same number of additional humanitarian visas be issued the following year as the number cancelled the previous year—that is, humanitarian visas additional to the usual number issued annually in a number corresponding to the number suspended under this bill. For this purpose, in my amendment, 'humanitarian visa' means a global special humanitarian visa, subclass 202, or a refugee visa, subclass 200, 201, 203 or 204.

Since 1947, in the aftermath of World War II, Australia has a mostly proud history of accepting refugees in times of crisis. It would behove this government to reflect on the achievement of the Chifley Labor government after World War I when, over two years, we welcomed 82,532 refugees—and that at a time when our population was a mere 7.5 million people. Compare that to the average intake in the decade prior to 2022 of 18,000 a year. Numbers of humanitarian arrivals also increased substantially after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Warsaw Pact countries' invasion of then-Czechoslovakia in 1968.

In the two decades following the Vietnam War, Australia resettled more than 100,000 Vietnamese refugees from various Asian countries—for the Hansard, I'm giving a nod right now to the member for Fowler in recognition of that. Following the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, Prime Minister Bob Hawke effectively gave 25,000 people—students who were already here, along with their spouses and dependents—permanent residency in Australia. That was on top of any humanitarian intake.

But these are just numbers. There is absolutely no doubt that the one million refugees that we have welcomed to this country since the end of World War II have made an enormous positive contribution. If you think hard enough about it, it's probably true to say that almost every Australian would know, has gone to school with, has worked with or is neighbours with a refugee. We know from experience that they are hardworking, kind, loyal, decent, wonderful contributors to this country. We are all better for knowing them, and Australia is a better place for having welcomed them.

But this government this week—the same week that it has announced that Australia will join the war by sending an E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, medium-range air-to-air missiles and 85 precious souls to the UAE—has introduced to this place not legislation to help people impacted by the illegal war in the Middle East but legislation to block people coming here who have already been granted a temporary visa to this country. The changes that the government is making today are allegedly intended not to manage national security but to safeguard the humanitarian program. But there's another way of sorting that out, and it doesn't have to be a demand response; it can be a supply one. Make no change to those who currently have temporary visas to enter Australian territories, and then, still within the law, allow these people to apply for protections as they would if they found themselves unable to return to their place of origin. In this time, more than likely, that will be Iran or other targeted places.

If we are going to stop people already approved to come to Australia from making that trip, we should make a corresponding increase to the number of humanitarian visas we offer and approve. There is a geopolitical and humanitarian crisis facing the world, and Australia must respond commensurate with the challenge that that is. I know many in my electorate of Bradfield would feel pride in our nation for standing unwaveringly alongside the people of Iran, who are vulnerable to an oppressive regime. Australia needs to play its fair share in this.

Julian Hill

The amendment is well intentioned but frankly unworkable. It provides an open ended, unquantified suggestion that executive government would be compelled to issue a number of humanitarian visas linked to a random number of people from a given country who'd received temporary visas.

The number of humanitarian entrants remains a matter for executive government. It's set thoughtfully and carefully through the budget process published in the budget papers. The government increased for four years the number of places to 20,000 per annum, up from 2022-23. In particular, as the member well knows, that was to accommodate people who'd worked for the Australian government for DFAT or served with Defence in Afghanistan, and we're more than honouring that commitment. We've committed to a minimum 26,500 places over four years. We've already exceeded 30,000 places. My electorate is home to the largest community of Australians born in Afghanistan of any in this parliament. It's budgeted in advance and, importantly, it's linked to planning and service provision, to ensure that vulnerable people settle into Australia well.

I'll choose my words carefully in observing that humanitarian migrants, at the kind of scale you're talking about, don't settle in your electorate. They settle in communities like mine. And it means an enormous amount to the people I and many of my colleagues represent that the humanitarian program is done in an orderly way, where the settlement infrastructure, schools, language schools and trauma support services can keep pace. With respect, the proposition that you're putting forward completely destroys the ability of the settlement services sector to do that. It's well meaning. It might get you in the newspaper. But, in effect, it could be a giant spending measure. It's unreasonable, which restricts the ability of the minister to exercise these powers without a new appropriation of potentially billions and billions of dollars. The core point remains. The government's view is that this is necessary to protect the integrity of the visa system. I restate in closing: it's not a controversial proposition that, when someone receives a temporary visa to come to Australia, the Australian people remain confident that they are coming for a temporary purpose, not for another purpose.

Question negatived.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved on the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.

Rowan Holzberger

I rise in support of the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. I am just looking around the chamber. I am not sure that anybody who is here this morning had the absolute experience of sitting through the member for New England's speech on this bill last night. Even people who have been here for a long time, who are used to the long rollicking performances that the member gives, may have been a little bit stunned by some of the things which he mentioned. Apart from the fact that it could be characterised as an impassioned speech against multiculturalism, it managed to somehow drift from the Inca empire to calling Australian workers 'lazy'. But I think, fundamentally, he missed completely the point of this bill, which is: it is not about saying which employers are good or bad but about saying whether or not an employer is accredited to be a sponsor for a skilled visa. Hopefully, that might allay some of the concerns that the opposition has about this bill. I would urge them to reconsider their opposition to this bill and support it.

Or maybe it was the member for Riverina, who very typically said people in the city don't understand what it is like to work in the bush. But I know, Deputy Speaker Claydon, that you and I both worked in the bush, we both worked on farms and we spent a lot of our time out in there in the sticks. And we know that, by and large, farmers are really just trying to do their best and that most of them are trying to do the right thing. But as is always the case with government programs—with immigration in particular—the public needs to have some sort of comfort that we have control over how it's working. So allowing the public to know that employers out there are being held accountable for their part in the arrangement gives some sort of comfort to the whole community that the system works. Because, as the member for Mallee said in her contribution, migrant workers aren't an option; they're essential. In order for that to proceed, you would think that the opposition would support this bill to give the sorts of guarantees which people in the Australian community are looking for.

Ultimately, despite all of the other contributions, it was the member for Nicholls who really belled the cat on where the opposition are coming from in this, when he criticised us raising the TSMIT—which, at a quarter to 10 in the morning, might be a little bit more of a conversation than it was going to be at 7.30 last night when people were ready to go home. The TSMIT sounds all very complicated, but it really just means 'temporary skilled migration income threshold'. It may have been replaced now, but it means that that's the amount which an employer has to pay in order to bring in a skilled migrant. From 2013 to 2023 it remained at $53,000, and the member for Nicholls criticised the government for lifting it. We lifted it to where it would've been had it kept up with CPI to about $70,000, and he said that it had soared. He characterised that it had somehow got out of control and had now made it uneconomical for companies to bring in overseas temporary migrant workers. I think that really does show where they are coming from here.

I would hate to characterise it as a deliberate feature of their economic architecture to keep wages down, but they said it themselves. And it makes me think that maybe they want to use temporary migration as another part of the architecture to keep wages down. Because, if you're keeping the TSMIT down at $53,000 and if you're saying to employers that they can bring people in from overseas to work for $53,000, you are keeping wages down and you are suppressing wages. It makes me think that they are deliberately trying to do that in so many areas, but in the most despicable way. They are out there causing division and beating their chests about migration while, at the same time, wanting to bring in workers so that they can be, effectively, exploited in order to drive down the wages of all Australians.

The reason why this issue is so important for the Labor Party is that, in many ways, this is the history of the Labor Party. This is our origin story—combating migrant exploitation. The member for Moreton said it much more eloquently than I could when she described the process of bringing in South Sea Islander workers during the late 1800s. She said that the people not only lost their wages but lost their lives. I could be corrected, but I think she also said something like 30 per cent of the people who were brought into that unthinkably horrible operation lost their lives due to European diseases. So it was from both stopping that outrageous practice out of the sense of justice that working people have but also protecting the wages and conditions of Australians that the Labor Party was formed. That was our birth. And here we are 150 years later still fighting the same fight against forces that are more concerned about the dollar than they are about justice or Australian workers. It is in our DNA to stand up for workers who have been brought to this country, for two reasons: (1) some employers are just trying to get that cheap labour and (2) the opposition will do anything they can to drive down wages and conditions.

Here we are, 155 years later—the latest example is a young woman who came into my electorate office, having been exploited at work. She had come here to work in aged care and had become involved in a dispute regarding the workplace treatment, and, acting as a union delegate, she was dismissed. She believed that her dismissal was related to advocating for her workplace rights and is now pursuing a claim in the commission. She was somebody who was working 12 hours a day and being paid for six hours a day. It is like a modern horror movie. It's something that—I'm sure none of us here can imagine what it is like to be in Australia on a temporary visa, working as a virtual slave for an employer that is humiliating you, that is degrading you and that is hanging over your head the threat of whether or not they remove your visa and kick you out of the country that you have come to love and that you want to make your life in. None of us can appreciate what that is like. It must surely be terrifying.

When we came to government in 2022, like in so many areas, we inherited a burning wreck of a migration system—a burning wreck that had failed in family reunion and that had failed in skilled migration—and the government commissioned the migration review, which I was very happy to be a part of. Having worked in the community for years, making a statement like 'burning wreck' doesn't really convey the pain and pressure that people were placed under because of a poorly resourced department and also because of poor policy. It was that awful mix of poor legislation and poorly applied legislation.

The migration review, which I was very happy to be a part of locally—I remember we organised local businesses and community leaders and local multicultural leaders to feed into that process. Arising out of more than just that process and arising out of Labor's deep commitment to protect the rights of migrant workers and to protect the rights of us all—protecting the rights of migrant workers protects the pay of everybody in the community, which might sound self-evident to us, but those on the other side know that, if you undermine the wages of migrant workers, you undermine the wages of the whole community. Coming out of that philosophy, we commenced that migration review, and, coming out of that, here are some of the measures, in this bill.

There are two things here particularly—the whole point of this legislation is to create a register so people like the young woman that came into my office will be able to easily search for another employer who is able to continue to sponsor her. That's essentially what this bill does. This bill also builds on previous bills which crack down on unscrupulous employers. This is where I think—I really do want to be bipartisan as much as I can in this place, but here there is a fundamental difference of values and philosophy. This is probably the best example of the hypocrisy of the opposition—they beat their chest a lot about law enforcement, but they don't fund it. On a slightly different topic of the NDIS, the measures that we've introduced around the NDIS to crack down on fraud mean that we are now reviewing more claims every day in the NDIS in one day than the previous government did in a year, which is an example of the sort of chest-beating that we've come to expect from the opposition, who talk a tough game but are completely missing on the field. Just as it is with migration, they are out there constantly beating their chests, but they totally underresourced the Australian Border Force. They totally undercooked the legislation to allow the Australian Border Force to crack down on unscrupulous employers. Yet again that burning wreck, that smoking wreck of a migration system left to us—it's in their DNA to turn a blind eye to the companies that are doing this. It's left to us to fix it. In fact, that 2019 report from the Migrant Workers' Taskforce recommended tougher penalties and a better resourced Australian Border Force—and what did you think they did? Absolutely nothing. They sat on their own report and left it to us to clean up the mess.

In summary, this bill is the latest in a long line of measures the Albanese Labor government has undertaken to put out the bin fire that is our migration system. The hypocrisy of the opposition is exposed the most when it comes to migration. While they are out there stoking division and people's fears, they benefit from a system where people come in and get exploited because they can drive down the wages and conditions of Australian workers.

These changes are the latest in a long line of Labor Party initiatives stretching back 150 years, where the Labor Party has stood up for Australians by standing up for the Australians who come here to work and who come here to make a life. This government has brought in new measures to crack down on dodgy employers. We've raised the income threshold under which you can come into Australia on a skilled visa. This bill makes it easier now for that young woman who came into my office, desperate to stay in Australia but also desperate to fight for the rights of the workers she left behind when she was sacked, to find an employer who is properly accredited and who is going to sponsor her dream.

The opposition are out there talking about mass migration. They're out there marginalising already marginalised communities. They're out there punching down on some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They should take a good hard look at themselves. The result they got at the last election will be the result they get in future elections because they are now talking to the fringe. The real Australia out there that believes in justice and the Labor Party that has always believed in justice is the community that won't tolerate an opposition that washes its hands of looking after the most vulnerable in our country.

Long debate text truncated.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Milton Dick

The question is that the business of the day be called on.

Alex Hawke

I move:

That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

Chris Bowen

I rise to defend the chair, and I rise to defend you and your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. I rise to defend, Madam Deputy Speaker, your right to make rulings.

Sharon Claydon

I need to check that the motion for dissent has been seconded. Who has seconded it? We need to follow the procedure correctly, and then we can deal with it.

Alex Hawke

The minister doesn't know what he's talking about.

Sharon Claydon

No-one's got the call. You do not have the call, Manager of Opposition Business. You're moving a dissent. We need to follow the procedure, which means you need to have it in writing with a seconder. Have you got that? I haven't seen it.

Alex Hawke

Are you asking me? I have moved the motion. I have submitted the motion. It has a mover and a seconder.

Sharon Claydon

Thank you. Now the debate can take place.

Alex Hawke

We are in the incredible situation today where the minister at the table is defending his new role as president of COP31 and saying our attempt to say to the Australian people that he will be part time as he will be busy overseas, serving interests there rather than working on the power prices of Australians and Australian businesses, is unparliamentary. It is outrageous that, in this parliament, you can't make the case that members or ministers are not full time in the interests of the Australian people. Why not? Why can't that argument be made to the Australian parliament?

Let me remind the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who should remember this, that the Prime Minister who sat in this chamber and said that his ministers would be part time was his predecessor Paul Keating. He made that case. It was a serious topic of debate in this House—part-time and full-time ministers. There would be a rotation where ministers only turned up on the days that Prime Minister Keating said they would turn up. It was such a disgrace that Prime Minister Keating had to back down and, under pressure from the opposition, return ministers to being present every single question time.

Let's look at the record of the member for McMahon, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He missed one day of scrutiny from the opposition or the people of Australia in this parliament because of his new role. So we have the perfect right to mount a case to Australians—the perfect right in debate, in general debate, to use the term 'part time'. It's perfectly okay. It is not unprofessional. It is not unparliamentary. It has real meaning because he is part time. He wasn't here to face the questions of the opposition or the Australian people. The minister was in the job overseas that we have been complaining about, not focused on Australians' energy prices.

In question time today, we heard from so many people here in opposition about what they're hearing from their electorates, such as business owners whose power bills are up 70 per cent—if you're listening at the moment, Minister. We've heard from individuals whose power bills have gone up substantially since this government got elected. And, yes, we have made the case that the minister's new role will mean that he is not fully occupied with fixing a 70 per cent increase in the power bills of certain businesses. We are making the case that part time is absolutely legitimate in this case—that he won't be fully engaged in the interests of Australians whose power bills are going through the roof. In fact, it's not only fair debate; it's an essential provision of democracy that we be allowed to say: 'This minister wasn't present to answer questions. This minister wasn't available on a parliamentary sitting day—when we had these questions on Monday.' We had them today. We were not sure if he would be back here today, but he slipped back into the country. The president returned! We asked him questions. If we are to make the case that his full-time role at COP31—and it is a full-time role, let's be honest. It's a role that will require money from Australian taxpayers to fund the staff that he will need. It will require bureaucrats to give him advice. It has real public and finance issues, and it's for the minister to defend his position, not the Speaker. It's for the minister to defend his position, not the Deputy Speaker. It's for the minister to say, 'My role is full time; my role is part time. Here's why. When I'm missing from parliament, it's okay.'

Prime Minister Paul Keating made the case that his ministers didn't need to be here every single day in question time. That's the case he made, and it went very badly in front of the Australian people. Paul Keating stood here and said that it's okay to roster on a minister and roster them off. Now we have Prime Minister Albanese telling us that it's okay for Minister Bowen to not be here because he is the    President of Negotiations in COP. Minister, we say that it's not okay. We say it's okay to mount a case part time or full time. We say that it's okay to use the language 'part-time' or 'full-time'. There is a slippery slope that we are on, and I know that the Leader of the House knows this. If we start banning 'part-time' and 'full-time' from our lexicon, we will be banning a lot of words. There will be a slippery slope of speakers from this day until every day of this parliament banning a new term and banning a new procedure for debate.

Every instinct of parliamentary democracy since Athens says you can use language in debate. Free speech says it. We know where free speech doesn't occur, don't we? The Prime said it today. 'We've got one view,' said the Prime Minister. Of course, you've got one view. There's no point looking at me and laughing or pointing and carrying on. You're not allowed to have a view. None of you on the backbench is allowed to have a view; we know that. Free speech requires language. Language is important. 'Part-time' is not offensive. It isn't unparliamentary. We're not making the reference in reference to his title. The opposition is making—

Sharon Claydon

Order! I need to bring you back to your dissent from my ruling about holding the Speaker's ruling. So just come back to that, and I will ask all members opposite also to just calm this down a little bit while we discuss sensibly this ruling.

Alex Hawke

We know this is a government with a 50 per cent majority. We understand that. That does not give them the right to be a dictatorship. That does not give them the right to trample on parliamentary democracy. It does not give this arrogant minister the right to say that, if we criticise him for being a part-time minister when he has been absent from this parliament, that he will be defended from the Speaker's chair—yes, I'm speaking to the dissent—because that should not be the case. The executive has enough protections. The minister has enough in place to protect his honour—the president's honour. The Speaker is not required to defend the minister's part-time or full-time nature. He should do it himself. So should members of the government. That's fair debate. It's fair debate in this place to use the term 'part-time'. It's fair to use 'full-time'. It's fair to say that a minister is part time or full time, and I think that will stand.

There can be no argument that you can make that says 'part-time' or 'full-time' is unparliamentary. There can be no argument that says this is an abuse of the standing orders. I regret that this has happened. I regret that we are here, but if we are here, we will not shirk from the debate every single day that, if you have a full-time role overseas serving other interests, you will not be in the service of Australians and their power bills. Households and businesses are struggling and require a minister who is full time. I think that if fair-minded members of this parliament, wherever they sit, were allowed to have a view, they would say, 'Maybe this shouldn't have happened.'

The rules for questions are not the rules for debate. The separation in the standing orders is very clear. Rules for questions do not include the standing orders that cover the general provisions for debate. It is an attempt by the Albanese Labor government to cover up the fact that they have a part-time minister. It is nothing else but that.

A government member: You are reflecting on him again!

No; I am reflecting on the government. We do disagree with the Deputy Speaker. We do disagree with this ruling. We accepted the Speaker's ruling in relation to question time, but we will not accept a ruling that says it is unfair for a part-time member of the executive who turns up only when they get back from an overseas trip and who might be away 10 or 20 days next year—we don't know—from the parliamentary schedule. We want you to be here to face these questions. It's fair to say you're working part time if you're not here to answer questions, and it should be fair, in reasonable debate in this place, to be allowed to say that a member like the COP President of Negotiations is absent from question time when he should be here.

Ted O'Brien

I second the motion. If the Leader of the Opposition uses a descriptor about a minister being part time, there is no reason why that would be unparliamentary or out of order. It was not a title bestowed upon the minister by the Leader of the Opposition; it was a descriptor. It begs the question of what else we should use in its place. Should he be the 'intermittent' minister—when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, the minister isn't working? Is that how we should describe this minister? Maybe the 'irregular' minister—one who relies only on batteries? The battery only works for two hours, and then there's nothing.

Angus Taylor

The dispatchable minister!

Ted O'Brien

Is he the 'dispatchable' minister? I think not. But I can tell you what I cannot call him. He is not the 'base-load' minister. He's not the minister that's on 24 hours a day. He's not the minister that's providing affordable energy to the Australian people. He's not those things.

I would have absolutely no concern if our side of this House were brought to order for actually calling him 'competent' or saying that he was doing Australia a favour in his role. But he is not. He is occasional, he is irregular, he is intermittent and he is incompetent, and this side of the House should have every right to speak freely not on the part of the coalition but on the part of the Australian people—on the part of the senior citizens who will go to Christmas without knowing if they can feed themselves or heat their house. That's on whose behalf we speak. We speak on behalf of the small businesses who are closing their doors because this government cannot manage the electricity grid and because this minister is intermittent. That is the problem. Yet we are told that we are not allowed in this House to call him a 'part-time' minister.

What I think is revealing here is—do you know who jumped to his feet? Guess who jumped to his feet to complain? The intermittent one himself! 'Oh, dear! They called me something,' he said. It's not very presidential, is it? It's not very presidential of him. He's very proud of his role. He's already spoken publicly—he's spoken from the dispatch box—about how important he is and how much power he has. He doesn't deliver any power, but he's spoken about how much power he has. Now he's excited because it's about him. I don't know how many times we have had MPIs in this chamber while he's been the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, but he's never turned up—not once! He's as reliable as his energy system is! But, then, there's a new topic, the topic is him, and here he is! We now know how to get him. He's not part time when it's about him, is he?

Sharon Claydon

Member for Fairfax, you're actually debating why you're dissenting from my upholding of the Speaker's ruling.

Ted O'Brien

All of these are reasons why we should be able to describe this minister as working only part time.

I don't know what's worse here. Is it the fact that he only works part time? It could be worse. Can you imagine how bad it would be if he were full time? Maybe we've got this wrong after all. God help us—can you imagine if he actually tried harder with the Australian energy system? Oh deary! God knows we wouldn't have any electricity at all. We'd all become candlestick makers.

I second this motion because this chamber deserves not just freedom of speech but the freedom to speak the truth, and the truth is this minister is part time and incompetent.

Sharon Claydon

I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

I knew they were looking to change. I didn't know it went that far.

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Sharon Claydon

A little bit of order please. I'm stating the question, which is that my ruling to uphold the Speaker's ruling is now being dissented from.

Long debate text truncated.

Andrew Gee

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

the Member for Calare presenting a Bill for an Act to protect Australia's prime agricultural land, and for related purposes;

debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and

any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.

Today is a historic day for Australia. Today I bring to this House our country's first bill to protect Australia's prime agricultural land. It is legislation that is crucial to the future of our country. This bill will secure and safeguard not only Australia's prime agricultural land but also our nation's food security. It's hard to believe that a country which relies so much on agriculture to sustain it has never before passed legislation to protect the land that is the source of such bounty and prosperity. The member for Kennedy and I are committed to bringing this legislation before the parliament because this matter is urgent. Our prime agricultural land is at serious risk.

The gross value of agricultural production has increased by 34 per cent in the past 20 years to $82.4 billion in 2023-24. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences has forecast that the gross value of agricultural production will be $95 billion in 2025-26. Agricultural exports were valued at $71.5 billion in 2023-24 and accounted for more than 10 per cent of all goods and service exports. In 2024-25 the value of Australian agricultural exports surged to $77.2 billion, or 15.1 per cent of Australia's total exported goods. These statistics demonstrate how important agriculture is to our country and also to the future of regional Australia.

As the population of the world continues to increase, so too does the importance of food and water resources. Their social, economic and strategic importance can't be underestimated. This being the case, why hasn't anyone made any effort to safeguard our prime agricultural land? Other countries, like Canada, are way ahead of us. British Colombia, for example, has been protecting its best agricultural land for many years. As the Australian population grows, the footprints of our cities, towns and villages continue to grow as well. Around our country, including regional Australia, residential developments and urban sprawl are encroaching onto some of our finest agricultural land. This is the land that feeds and nourishes us, yet we're building houses on it. It's wrong, and it must stop.

It's not just residential development that poses a threat to prime agricultural land. Across regional Australia, foreign corporations are rolling out renewables projects, some of which are on prime agricultural land. I'm not against renewable energy, but at some point our national interest has to be the paramount consideration. To be clear, we should not have foreign corporations or anyone else effectively deciding how our prime agricultural land is used. Our prime agricultural land should be off limits. Residential and industrial developments need to go elsewhere. Our prime agricultural land should be preserved for agriculture. I should haven't to spell it out, but food security is a key part of national security. A nation which can't feed itself is a vulnerable one. It would be a national tragedy if we continued to squander this extraordinary resource by building residential and industrial development on top of it.

The Protecting Australia's Prime Agricultural Land Bill provides that, if a person, which includes a corporation, is in possession of prime agricultural land, the person must not use the land for a purpose other than agriculture or permit another person to use the land for a purpose other than agriculture. It also provides that, if a person purchases prime agricultural land, the person must ensure that the land is not used for a purpose other than agriculture. The bill also makes it a requirement that a person in possession of prime agricultural land that is being used in part for a purpose other than agriculture at the date of commencement of this proposed act must not expand or extend such usage. The bill further requires that, if prime agricultural land is being used for a purpose other than agriculture as at the date of commencement and such non-agricultural use ceases, the prime agricultural land must once again be used for agriculture.

The House needs to urgently consider this bill because our prime agricultural land is under threat and it can't be taken for granted. The general public listening to this debate may well be asking: 'How has this been allowed to happen? How come nobody has stood up to protect our prime agricultural land?' The truth is that there has been a shocking failure of politicians at all levels of government to do their jobs—lazy local councils prepared to rubberstamp developments regardless of their impact on agriculture, lazy and derelict town and city planning and lazy state governments failing to pass planning laws to properly protect our prime agricultural land. At a federal level, the major parties have also been asleep at the wheel on this issue since the time of Federation.

Where have the so-called guardians of the bush, the National Party, been on this? They claim to be the protectors of agriculture, but in 12 years in New South Wales government and nine years in federal government they utterly failed to live up to one of their founding tenets and very reason for existence—not one piece of legislation. They have completely and abjectly failed to protect our vital and irreplaceable prime agricultural land. And let's not forget that it was the National Party that created renewable energy zones in New South Wales and which also passed laws to put wind farms into state forests and then abrogated its responsibility to properly regulate them. They've created chaos, pitting neighbour against neighbour, failing to ensure that there is genuine consultation between developers and communities and failing to properly protect the rights of neighbouring landholders. The failure has been epic. It's been of epic proportions.

Since being in opposition, instead of getting on with the job of formulating legislation like this, the National Party have spent their time fighting each other and their coalition partners. Who could forget the attempted forced retirement of the members for New England and Riverina. Well, the member for New England has taken the hint, and they may well live to regret it. I don't think he's going to go quietly into the night. Then they split from the Liberals over what they said was a matter of extremely high principle, only to call it off two days later when they realised they would lose staffing positions, take a pay cut and have Liberals running in their seats. In the spirit and tradition of the English cricket team, they still claim to be the victors in the seat of Calare, despite that not being reflected on the score board. Things are so bad that they are going to be out of power for years, and yet the country is crying out for effective opposition. The public is sick of the petty political power plays and the back-stabbing.

Because of the chaos, the grandstanding, the veritable bonfire of the vanities on the opposition benches as they scrap over the spoils of defeat, it falls to the crossbench to do the heavy lifting for Australia, and that is what this bill is all about. Australia's farmers are the best in the world. Our prime agricultural land is a precious gift that must be protected. It defies belief that we continue to build houses, parking lots and industrial developments on it. If we don't act now, it will continue to disappear before our eyes. I urge members of the House to come into this chamber and support this bill right now. To the National Party: don't just say you support agriculture. Come in and vote for it. This bill is the Independents doing your jobs for you. To those Liberal and Labor Party members and, indeed, to all members, I say to you: remember where your food comes from. It doesn't just magically appear on supermarket shelves. To all members of this House: I remind you that our nation's ability to feed itself comes from the great food baskets of country Australia and its prime agricultural land. It's also where the fibre comes from that makes the clothes we wear. To all members of this House: this is your moment to stand up for agriculture, to stand up for our nation's food security. Come into this chamber and support the Protecting Australia's Prime Agricultural Land Bill.

I commend the bill to the House and I seek leave to table a copy of the bill and the explanatory memorandum.

Leave granted.

Lisa Chesters

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Rebekha Sharkie

I second the motion because it is imperative and it is urgent that we debate this bill today. The reason why is that God's not making any more land but in Australia we act like he is. We continue to concrete over our best farmland in our nation. We don't value our farmland. We think that there will just be more of it, and there won't. It is a finite resource that belongs to all Australians.

Look at South Australia, my state. Only 11 per cent of our land is considered arable, only nine per cent is under production and only four per cent of the total land area of South Australia is considered highly arable farmland, where you have 500 millimetres of rainfall a year on average. And yet it is that four per cent that is under the most threat in my state, and it's under threat from the expansion of housing—the continual urban sprawl. We are going to get to a point in our nation where we have nowhere to farm, nowhere that has quality land, because it's all going to be housing. What are we going to eat?

These decisions that we make in this place today affect generations to come. The decisions that we make in this place today are decisions about which in 100 years time fellow Australian are going to say: 'What on earth were you doing? Why did you not protect our most important resource?' That is why we must debate this today.

I commend the member for Calare. I second this motion and commend him for this bill, for his foresight and for his insight, because right across Australia our local and state governments, through greed and through laziness, are continuing to carve up every decent bit of farmland, turn it into 300-square-metre blocks and stick a house on them. We're going to have nowhere to grow food. And what does that mean? Where do we get our food from? We're still going to need to eat as a nation. Do we import all of our food? Does our milk come from overseas? Does all of our food—everything you buy in the supermarket? It's bad enough now how difficult it is to find Australian food on our supermarket shelves. In generations to come, that will become worse. We must support this bill and we must debate this bill today, because in my electorate, whether it's down at Sellicks; at Mount Barker, outside of my electorate; out to Roseworthy; or further out, we are just carving up more and more of the nation's best farmland.

In fact, in South Australia back in 1991, the South Australian government's natural resources management standing committee did a report on the alienation of rural farmlands. They said that, if rural lands continue to be alienated at the rate and in the manner permitted in the past, the state will be faced with a serious conflict between commercial farmers and other land users and, ultimately, significant losses in primary production are likely.

That was 34 years ago, and I can tell you that, in my state, since that time, we have gone further and further. The urban sprawl just continues to go further and further. I look at where we used to grow wheat. I look at where we had cattle, where we had strawberry farms, where we had mushroom farms—just beyond. And now it's all housing, and it's going to get worse and worse. We should be making decisions in this place that protect that farmland.

As the member for Calare said, over in Canada—if anyone here travels to Europe, they will see that they value their farmland. They value their food security. But, here, we just think God's going to make more of it. Well, he's not. We know that, with climate change, we're going to get drier and drier as a continent. We know that where that line is—we have Goyder's Line in South Australia. They say that it's going to become lower and lower and that the arable land will get smaller and smaller.

In South Australia, just four per cent of our farmland is highly arable farmland. That should be protected for that purpose. It should be farmland. We need to have national leadership, and that is why this is being called on in this parliament. I would urge the parliament to act on this today for future generations tomorrow that deserve our doing something today, while we still can, to fix and address this.

Andrew Charlton

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.