Andrew Leigh

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the question be put.

Milton Dick

Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately?

Barnaby Joyce

Leave is granted.

Honourable members interjecting —

Angie Bell

Leave is not granted.

Milton Dick

We're going to recommit this. We're going to go through the process one by one to get it right. Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately?

Barnaby Joyce

No, it's not.

Tony Burke

From the contingency motion, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

Milton Dick

I will explain to the House what the Leader of the House has moved. On page 6 of today's Notice Paper, it says:

Contingent on the second reading of a bill being agreed to and the Speaker having announced any message from the Governor General under standing order 147: Minister to move—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

The question is the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Milton Dick

We've now dealt with the issue of the second reading and that question being put. I will put the question before the House that the bill be read a second time. The difficulty is the question was never stated before the House. It was moved and it was seconded.

I'm aware, member for New England. The question now is that the bill be read a second time. On the amendment moved by the member for Riverina, the difficulty is that that question was never stated before the House. It was moved and seconded, but the question was not stated. We just resolved the question that had been stated before the House, which was that the question be put on the second reading. You can appreciate the position I'm in. The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

Angus Taylor

I second the motion.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the member be no longer heard.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business moving the following motion immediately:

That this House expresses its strong disapproval of this Government's contempt for good parliamentary process in bringing on debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024 within one day of the bill being introduced and without adequate notice to parliamentarians.

This matter is urgent because of the disgraceful way that the government has conducted itself. This bill is still before a Senate committee—

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

The Manager of Opposition Business will pause. The members on my right and left, we're just going to do this in an orderly way.

Tony Burke

There is legislation we need to get across to the Senate. We don't have time to deal with this. I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is the member no longer be heard.

Milton Dick

The question now before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Tony Burke

I move:

That business intervening before order of the day No. 14, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

For the information of members, that is to bring on the supermarket-relevant legislation as the next item of business. I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the question be now put.

Colin Boyce

I rise to resume my contribution to the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. We were talking about Stanwell Corporation in Gladstone, which is proposing to build a liquefied hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen production plant in Gladstone. This is in conjunction with several international consortiums—among them, Iwatani, Marubeni and Keppel. Recently we've understood that the Japanese Kansai Electric Power Company has withdrawn from the proposal. You would have to ask yourself: why is that? They continually quote the same things—the economic cost of producing hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, and transporting hydrogen. We've seen other companies, such as Fortescue, Origin, Woodside, Krupp steel—the German steelmaker—and so forth also withdraw their support from these huge proposed hydrogen projects, purely based on the economic costs of them.

With respect to the Gladstone proposal, Stanwell Corporation is proposing to make an 800-tonnes-per-day liquid hydrogen facility and also to produce 1,200 tonnes of gaseous hydrogen. They also intend to build an ammonia plant there. The problem with all of that is that, if you actually analyse what their proposals are, they are going to be enormous. Global installed hydrogen liquefaction capacity is around 355 tonnes per day right now. The largest plant currently in operation has a capacity of 34 tonnes per day. The all-time largest hydrogen liquefaction plants were constructed at NASA during the 1950s and 1970s, and most recently-constructed plants are small in comparison. Nonetheless, even if specific energy demand of liquefaction can be significantly lower, the capital costs of liquefaction are still a significant part of the overall cost of liquefaction—even for larger plants. It is estimated that the capital investment consists of around 40 to 50 per cent of the specific liquefaction costs of these plants.

We know that the largest liquefaction plant is at Cape Canaveral, at the Kennedy Space Centre—34 tonnes a day. What Stanwell is proposing is to build a plant that's capable of producing 800 tonnes per day.

The storage capacity at Cape Canaveral is about 800 tonnes, so you would imagine that Stanwell would be proposing to build its storage capacity for at least 10 days production; therefore, we would need to have a storage capacity of something like 8,000 tonnes. The reality of this project is that it could possibly be 10 times bigger than the liquid hydrogen facility at Cape Canaveral at the Kennedy Space Center right here at Gladstone. That then raises questions of the enormous capital cost involved in doing this, like why is that these large international companies are withdrawing their support? As I have said before, Fortescue, Origin, Woodside, Krupp Steel in Germany and now Kansai—a Japanese electric company that was part of this original consortium—have now withdrawn their support and it is all over money, the economic cost of it.

Saul Kavonic, energy analyst at MST Marquee, said 'green hydrogen economics are so uncompetitive that even with generous government subsidies and a captive buyer, it still struggles to work'. For me, I would ask the question: why is the federal government supporting a Queensland government GOC along with the previous state government investing millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars in projects that are economically unviable? We have people living in cars, people living in tents, families that can't send their children to sporting practice yet here we have governments continually wasting money on what is clearly economic madness.

The government's Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. proposes to bring about a regime where they will give tax credits to try and alleviate the cost of producing things like liquid hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen and, once again, the numbers simply don't stack up.

I want to talk about another point—that is, First Nations procurement—which I outlined earlier in my contribution. We know from the documents that Stanwell has put before the EPBC office that already there have been agreements for reparations and inclusion of First Nations people and so forth in these projects. In the documents it says that memorandums of understanding agreements have been made; however, these agreements will not be made public because of their sensitive nature. Well, I take great exception to that. This is taxpayers' money we are dealing with, with both state governments and the previous federal government, who are dealing with a Queensland government GOC with taxpayers' funds. Why can't we be transparent and accountable about who is doing these deals with the First Nations proponents? What exactly are they and how much money is involved? This is, once again, why I call for Aboriginal corporations to come under Australian corporate law so that we can see where all of this money is going, who is making these deals and the numbers involved.

As I've outlined, these projects are economically not sound and green hydrogen as a viable alternative into the future is a long, long way off. We just simply do not have the technology to do that. The World Steel Association in their fact sheet have said the world produces about 70 million tonnes of hydrogen right now. Three-quarters of that hydrogen is produced from natural gas, about one-quarter produced from coal. If we were to change that and produce that 70 million tonnes of hydrogen through green energy and so forth using wind turbines, solar panels and batteries, the amount of energy required to do that would be 3,600 terawatts hours of energy—renewable energy. That is more than the entire generating capacity of the EU.

So, once again, I would question building an 800-tonne-per-day liquid hydrogen facility in Gladstone, 1,200 tonnes a day of gaseous hydrogen, building ammonia plants and so forth. How many wind turbines, solar panels and batteries will be required to be installed in Central Queensland to make this thing work? It simply doesn't make economic sense, and that is why I and the coalition do not support this bill.

Meryl Swanson

A Future Made in Australia is the flagship policy for the Albanese Labor government, but, more importantly than that, this $22.7 billion investment guides and positions us towards a shared goal of rebuilding our nation's domestic manufacturing base and also participating in a new global economy that is upon us right now. If we are not fleet footed, sure footed and front footed, we will be last in this global race. We have everything we need to be part of it, and we must lead the way. We are going to be securing good jobs for blue-collar workers. We're going to be part of this emerging world market for new forms of energy like hydrogen.

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a vital element of ensuring the success not only of this policy but, quite frankly, of our country in a world that is ever hungry for energy and ever innovating. We have the critical minerals. We have the things that are absolutely required to take us on this journey. This is the way of the future, and it is the future of Australia. We must be part of it. We know our short-term and immediate policy initiatives have been strong and effective: tax credits for every taxpayer, energy bill relief and cheaper medicines, just to name a few. Through these measures, we have put more money back into the accounts and pockets of every Australian taxpayer, and that counts. This piece of legislation is going to help secure the future of our economy.

We know we can't click our fingers and arrive at the finish line in that global race straightaway. We know that things take time. But, like all good governments, we have put in the hard yards to build responsible policy. We're now building long-term policy, and we are future focused, and that's what these production tax credits are about. They are about saying to companies, 'We are going to give you a credit because you are paving a new way and charting a new course for our future.'

Yes, some of the technology is still emerging, but we have to be part of it. We can't get left behind. Our government has been clear and transparent about our ideals, our intentions and our aspirations in designing a road map for a more resilient Australia, and we saw this during COVID. We saw very clearly that there is a delicate balance between trading with the rest of the world and having that trade reduced by something like a viral pandemic. We do need a certain amount of resilience in our own manufacturing sector, so we have to strike that incredibly important balance between what we can mine and manufacture here and what we, importantly, trade with the rest of the world. This is what smart governments do. We don't turn our back and face in one singular direction. This is a multifaceted, multidirectional and, quite frankly, multitechnology world that we live in, and we must be part of it.

For many decades, we were considered world leaders in energy, and we still are. We keep the lights on in places like Tokyo, Taipei and Beijing with our incredible coal, which is mined in places like my electorate and that of my friend and colleague the member for Hunter, and we know that that's an enormous part of our current energy mis. But we also know that, as the Minister for Resources has said time and time again in this parliament, the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources industry, including things like critical minerals. This bill is going to deliver targeted economic investments in key industries such as renewable hydrogen and critical minerals, and it's going to unlock private investment. I couldn't be prouder to support this bill today, and I just say to those opposite: get on board, because we cannot be left behind in this race.

Long debate text truncated.

Rebekha Sharkie

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

notes that the Government, under the leadership of the Minister for Communications, has failed to take any action to reduce gambling advertising, 17 months after receiving unanimous recommendations from a Labor-chaired committee;

calls on the Minister for Communications to explain to the House why the Government has failed to take any actions; and

calls on the Government to either:

introduce its own legislation on gambling advertising; or

allow other bills that seek to address the harms caused by gambling advertising to be debated in this House.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Mayo from moving the following motion—That the House:

notes that the Government, under the leadership of the Minister for Communications, has failed to take any action to reduce gambling advertising, 17 months after receiving unanimous recommendations from a Labor-chaired committee;

calls on the Minister for Communications to explain to the House why the Government has failed to take any actions; and

calls on the Government to either:

introduce its own legislation on gambling advertising; or

allow other bills that seek to address the harms caused by gambling advertising to be debated in this House.

We have waited 17 months since a unanimous report, You win some, you lose more, was handed down in June 2023 by a committee chaired by the late Peta Murphy. It's been 17 months of hand-wringing and 17 months of, 'Oh, we're thinking about it. We're going to do something,' but absolutely nothing has happened. This is potentially the last day of the parliament and potentially the last day for this term, and still we have nothing. It is shameful.

The committee found that many Australians are frustrated by gambling advertising. They noted that gambling is heavily marketed through popular sports. We know that it is young people, young men in particular, who are being targeted by gambling advertising. We know that we're now at $32 billion that we lose as a nation. Gambling is largely targeted at young men, particularly may I say tradies. These are young men who are getting together with their mates, and they're told to bet with their mates, yet we have nothing. That is why we need to suspend standing orders. This is a national emergency. We are the biggest losers in the world on a per capita basis. We're now at a per capita loss of more than $1,500 for every man, woman and child in this nation, yet we do nothing in this place. We must act on this. This is the last day of the parliamentary sitting year, potentially the last day this parliament, and yet nothing.

That report by the late Peta Murphy, who was sick while she was chairing that committee—she was sick and yet she was so passionate and so dedicated on this issue that she didn't let it go; she didn't stand down as chair. She wanted to make sure that report happened, that those recommendations were made. And for what? For naught. Nothing is happening in here on this. I think it's appalling that the government has done nothing. I want the minister to come in and explain to this parliament why. If not, I want the minister to introduce legislation. The Australian community deserves that legislation to be introduced. If we can deal with other pieces of legislation with lightning speed, why not act on this? I implore the government to think of the late Peta Murphy. Do the right thing by the late Peta Murphy. At least ensure we act on some of the recommendations in the report that she gave her heart and soul to.

Jenny Ware

I second that motion. Barely weeks after being elected in 1996 then prime minister John Howard's leadership, political courage and integrity were put to the test on the issue of gun ownership following the tragic mass shooting at Port Arthur. It was a test that John Howard well and truly passed. Australians have lower rates of gun ownership than our counterparts and have not been victims of the mass shootings and other horrific events that have occurred in other parts of the world, especially in the United States. John Howard had to stare down much of his voter base and convince his coalition partners and those in the regions that this was necessary for the long-term safety of Australians.

This Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has so far missed the opportunity to demonstrate strong leadership, moral courage and political conviction on a national, social and health epidemic, the impact of online gambling on those experiencing gambling harm.

David Coleman

Scare tactics.

Jenny Ware

I note the comments from my colleague; the member of Banks and I agree: the Prime Minister has shown no leadership and he's scared.

More than 17 months after the parliamentary committee, of which I was a member, handed down its bipartisan and unanimous report, You win some, you lose more__, including 31 recommendations, Anthony Albanese and Communication Minister Rowland are yet to respond to the report. As a committee, we heard evidence from those with lived experience of gambling harm, including families suffering from financial ruin, homelessness and, most devastatingly, Australians living with suicidality, as well as many who had taken their own lives as a result of gambling harm, gambling addiction.

I want to also point out the work that went into this report by the member for Menzies and the member for Cowper, who were the two other members of the coalition on that inquiry.

The report recommended broadly that a national regulatory teamwork be established to address the problem on a national basis through a public health lens. Those who gave evidence are similarly bewildered as to the delay from the Labor government. Only a couple of weeks ago, Anna Bardsley, who gave evidence to the inquiry, made a trip to Canberra to meet with the Prime Minister. She was not given an audience with the Prime Minister. Let's think of all the other people who've been given audiences with this Prime Minister over the past couple of weeks.

Anna Bardsley was given an audience with me. Anna and her colleagues spoke with me about having committed extraordinary theft to feed their gambling habits, and one lady had served a prison sentence of four years. She'd stolen more than $400,000, which she has repaid, but her life has been destroyed. Another spoke to me about first gambling at the age of seven as well as the social impacts online gambling has had on his community of Asian Australians.

On 10 October, the member for Menzies, Keith Wolahan, and I both asked questions of Minister Rowlands in question time about the likely timing of a response to the report. She failed to answer that question. She also failed to answer the question about which recommendations she supported and which she did not support. The Prime Minister has disregarded questions on this. He has said, 'Oh, I'm not going to stand in the way of Australians having a bit of a flutter or a punt.' But that's not what this is about. Australians love a punt. We spend approximately $25 billion on legal wages each year, with close to 40 per cent of the population gambling weekly. We spent close to $1 billion on the Melbourne Cup. We are the only nation that stops for a horse race. I support this motion, and I call on the Prime Minister to similarly support this motion and stand up on online gambling harm.

Stephen Jones

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.