Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

The question is that the question be now put.

Sophie Scamps

I rise today to speak against this bill in the strongest possible terms. One of the main reasons the people of Mackellar sent me to this place was that they wanted greater integrity and transparency from our politicians and in our political system. The way the Minister for Resources has tried to sneak through an amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, an amendment which would weaken the consultation obligations of offshore oil and gas proponents, is a masterclass in lack of transparency and lack of consultation.

For nearly a decade people across Australia, including in my electorate of Mackellar, have grown increasingly frustrated by the lack of integrity in our political system. For nearly a decade they've watched on as former governments failed to put in place measures to combat corruption within their own ranks; pork-barrelling flourished, as did the jobs-for-mates culture; the influence of vested interests flourished; and there was a lack of transparency around political lobbying and donations. It seems that here the fossil fuel interests are once again pulling the strings.

The Australian people sent a very clear message to this place at the last election: they had had enough of the lack of transparency and they expected better. However, the manner in which the resources minister has attempted to slip through an amendment to this bill lacks transparency and integrity. The minister is trying to slip in an amendment which would weaken obligations for offshore oil and gas proponents to consult with communities and First Nations peoples, thus circumventing our national environmental laws, and get it through unnoticed. It is couched as being among amendments to improve safety for workers on offshore mining projects, something that we of course support. But the way this has been couched—in amongst many other different amendments, in a 'nothing to see here' mentality—lacks transparency.

This is another example of the vital importance of the crossbench in holding the government to account and calling them out when they don't live up to their own ambitions of being more transparent and collaborative. I was optimistic that that message had got through at the last election. I was hopeful that the new government would act with integrity and transparency. Unfortunately, on this occasion I have been disappointed. In fact, when it comes to laws to protect our environment, the Labor government have repeatedly failed Australians. The Labor government have greenwashed us over and over again. They are, quite simply, speaking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to the environment and climate change.

The resources minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water are acting in direct opposition to one another, as in the case of this amendment. Just as the environment minister is holding in-depth consultations about how to strengthen our national environment laws, the resources minister is creating a pathway around them—a back door, if you like—for the fossil fuel companies. Despite all the rhetoric that followed the dire state of the environment report that was made public in 2022, the Labor government have done very little to actually protect our environment or halt the devastating effects of climate change. Of course they will claim otherwise, quite naturally. They are very good at tinkering around the edges and making the Australian public think they are taking action. They use phrases like 'signature climate policy', 'nature positive plan'. They're very good at spin. But once they've unveiled their signature climate policy or Nature Positive Plan they will very quickly and quietly introduce tricky pieces of legislation which subvert or negate the effects of what they claim they have set out to do.

Let's go through some examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all the safeguard mechanism. This is the government's signature climate policy. It's a policy which deals only with scope 1 emissions and only those from Australia's 219 largest emitters. To put that in perspective: scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse gas emissions from sources that are controlled or owned by those 219 largest emitters. If we take the example of fossil fuel companies, that means the safeguard mechanism seeks to regulate only the emissions created from taking fossil fuels out of the ground, when they are being mined. It does nothing to cover emissions created from what happens next: the burning of those fossil fuels, which, as everyone knows, is where the devastation really occurs.

Further, the safeguard mechanism does nothing to deal with emissions from transport or households. On transport, we are nearly two years into this term of parliament, and this government has still not legislated the vehicle efficiency standards. Yes, a proposal is on the table, but as of today Australia remains partnered with Russia as one of the only OECD countries without vehicle efficiency standards. Two years into the government's term, manufacturers are still able to treat this country as a dumping ground for heavy-polluting vehicles.

But back to the safeguard mechanism: it was introduced with much fanfare, and I supported that piece of legislation. Like everything related to the climate or the environment that this government is doing, it wasn't adequate, but it was progress. I negotiated with the government on it and helped achieve a concession in relation to the new gas facilities, which as a result are required to be net-zero emissions from their commencement.

Shortly afterwards, however, the Minister for the Environment and Water introduced the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Documents released under the freedom of information laws revealed that this bill was introduced so the government could help gas companies like Santos subvert the requirements of the safeguard mechanism. This bill allowed the import and export of carbon dioxide for injection into the seabed. That's right: Santos demanded an exemption from this provision in the safeguard mechanism, and they got it—inject carbon into our oceans or ship it to East Timor and inject it into their ocean bed. The safeguard mechanism, in this way, has been thwarted. Carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology at best, can now be used as a way for fossil fuel companies to expand their gas projects massively. And don't forget: our safeguard mechanism does nothing to address what happens when gas is actually burnt for energy.

The next big reform the government boasts about is the changes to our country's environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. For this, the government has a Nature Positive Plan, but we have not seen the government's proposed amendments to the EPBC Act, despite having been promised that we would see them well ahead of now. There are even suggestions that some of the necessary reforms to the EPBC legislation will not be introduced in this term of government.

But, to be fair, there was one necessary reform to the EPBC Act which the government did introduce late last year. That was to extend the water trigger in the EPBC Act to cover all forms of unconventional gas. In other words, as a result of that reform, where mining for any type of gas occurs onshore, it must be referred to the environment minister for approval if it is likely to have a significant impact on water resources.

But—and there's always a 'but'—there are two current proposals for new gas projects in the Beetaloo basin which we know have not been referred to the minister under this expanded water trigger. The minister has written to the proponent, Tamboran Resources, informing the company of its obligations under the new laws but has not yet used her call-in powers to require the project to be referred to her for assessment. I asked a question about this in question time last week, and there was no indication that the call-in powers would be used.

So the question arises: What happens if the proponent fails to refer projects to the minister under the new water trigger? Is there a consequence? The answer is that the water trigger is a law which essentially leaves the decision about whether a project needs federal approval up to the profit driven fossil fuel company, the proponent. Any penalty in relation to a failure to refer can only be imposed after the relevant fossil fuel project commences. The fossil fuel company may, of course, already have destroyed the water aquifer by that point. Once that's done, a maximum penalty of around $15 million can be imposed. This would be a drop in the ocean for a fossil fuel company that might make billions of dollars in profit from already having destroyed our water resources. They will consider such a penalty a cost of doing business.

Another example of industries receiving exemptions from environmental laws is the logging industry. Where a regional forestry agreement is in place in a particular state, logging operations covered under that agreement are exempt from the EPBC Act. Again, as a result of a question I asked in parliament last year, the minister confirmed that the reforms to the EPBC Act would remove that exemption. But in subsequent dealings with the environment minister's office they have often sidestepped the question of precisely when the regional forestry agreements would lose their exemption. Some of those regional forestry agreements, after all, have up to 20 years still to run. Will it only be new regional forestry agreements that are caught up by these environment laws? Will others still have 20 years to log our native forests free from the restriction imposed by our national environment laws?

With this bill and with the amendments to this bill, as we have seen but not yet been briefed on or even officially told about, we see yet another example of the government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. This bill is called the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and it is the 'other measures' bit where we immediately are concerned. In amongst the detail of new safety measures for offshore gas industry workers the government had hidden an amendment which basically allows the resources minister to sidestep the requirements of the EPBC Act when approving projects. The bill facilitates the weakening of current obligations for offshore oil and gas proponents to consult with interested communities and First Nations representatives about their projects. It empowers the resources minister to introduce lower standards than those that would be required under the EPBC Act. This is an incredible example of the government doing its level best to subvert its own environmental legislation. When it comes to projects as environmentally destructive and catastrophic for the climate as offshore oil and gas production, why on earth would the government weaken its own existing environmental standards? Not only that, why would it hide that it is weakening it in a bill which was otherwise about a very different issue entirely?

Then we get to the procedural problems in the government's handling of this bill. This bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for a truncated, some might say quick-and-dirty, review of the legislation. Lo and behold, that inquiry recommended no changes to the bill. The inquiry report noted:

The committee notes that many witnesses have submitted that—

the changes at issue—

… may be applied in such a way which could potentially weaken environmental standards or consultation requirements.

The report did not quote or analyse those submissions but went straight on in the next sentence to highlight evidence from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources:

… that the bill under consideration does not change approval or consultation processes.

It is only after the howls of protest from the crossbench and the entire environmental community that the government is seeking to introduce amendments to this bill.

What do those amendments do? They basically establish an optional consultation process between the resources minister and the environment minister. The effect of the amendments is that when the resources minister wants to make a regulation bypassing the EPBC Act, she must be satisfied that those regulations are not inconsistent with that act. She must consult with the environment minister, and the environment minister must send the resources minister a notice declaring whether the regulations are consistent or inconsistent with the EPBC Act. But at the end of all that the resources minister may ignore everything and put through the regulations anyway, to use the language of the amendment, even if the environment minister thinks the regulations she wants to make are inconsistent with the environment laws. Even if the environment minister issues a notice to the resources minister declaring exactly the same thing, the resources minister may go ahead and make the regulations anyway.

So at the end of it all, this bill and the government's amendments to it do nothing to resolve the reality of accelerated offshore gas approvals. Unfortunately, this Labor government has proven itself just as willing to approve coal and gas developments as the coalition government was. In seeking to pass this bill the government is making a complete mockery of our national environment laws. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

Long debate text truncated.

Bob Katter

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Kennedy from moving the following motion immediately—That this house

(1) notes that:

(a) The Coles and Woolworths oligopoly is having an appalling impact on farmers and consumers around Australia;

(b) The people of Australia are being overcharged punitively by the supermarket giants whilst the nation's farmers are being paid prices which are below cost of production and do not provide them a liveable income;

(c) Urgent action is required to level the playing field between the farmers and consumers on the one hand, and the supermarket giants on the other;

(d) The Member for Kennedy and Member for Clark introduced the 'Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024' this morning which divests supermarkets of this market power specifically by setting market power limits with associated timeframe, providing significant penalties and establishing an oversight body;

(e) The Senate's oversighting legislation does not in itself provide divestiture but leaves the onus of proof resting with another government authority. Such authorities have already proved to be ineffective; and

(2) Calls on the Parliament of Australia to: Bring on the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 for debate immediately, and it be given priority over all other business in order to stop any further delay in providing affordability to consumers and fairness to farmers.

Milton Dick

The member has moved a suspension. The member for Kennedy has 10 minutes.

Bob Katter

I think that this battle is far from over. We may not win in the parliament today, but the government must be served notice that every element of Australia is screaming for this. The minute the gun went off, the Leader of the Nationals said he was going for divestiture. The Greens said they were going for divestiture. Whether they said that before or not, I don't know. All I'm saying is that this is a rolling thunder ball, and it's going to keep rolling until we get some justice on this issue.

When these people had 50.1 per cent of the market, in 1991, we had 276,000 farmers in Australia. We now have 83,000. That's all that's left, and those that are left are in a pretty poor state. No country on earth has allowed this sort of concentration of market power—and it's in food; it's not as though it's in some commodity that is an indulgence.

I want to make the situation perfectly clear. In 1991, Woolworths and Coles had 50.1 per cent of the market. By 2001, the ABS said they had 68 per cent and ANOP said they had 72 per cent—so let's say they had 70 per cent—so they've gone from 50 per cent to 70 per cent by 2001.

This is the interesting part: their mark-up went from an outrageous 109 per cent to 196 per cent. We had to have a small basket because we're not a big research engine or anything of that nature. We just said, 'Put these items down. Go out and find out what price they are.' Whether you want to believe that or not, that's up to you. I don't care. I've held up constantly throughout this debate a picture of a potato. I've held up a potato. The potato on the day that I held it up last week was between 40 cents and 50 cents. That's 45 cents they paid the farmer. Their price here is $3.90. It's a mark-up of 800 per cent.

Does this place do nothing about it? Don't we care that people out there are going hungry now, and they're missing meals? Doesn't anybody care? Really, if you don't do anything about this, you don't care. Don't give it to an authority. Nothing's going to happen. Canberra will never discipline a giant like this. Don't do that. That's just a waste of time. Have another inquiry? People are laughing at you and they are voting. Just understand this. There was a Tasmanian result. I can't speak for other parts of Queensland, but I know that in North Queensland, every incumbent went for a fall, almost every single incumbent mayor, because the people are getting more and more angry. They can't meet their house payments and they can't meet the cost of buying food for their families. This place is doing absolutely nothing about it. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, but I think all of my crossbench colleagues would share my view that the boys on the gravy train are on my right and the boys on the gravy train are on my left here. They're on the bandwagon. Snouts in the trough is a term we used, and that's an accurate term to use. Because there can be no other explanation for their blatant and continuous refusal to do anything about a problem which, when I did the figures some time ago, the worst country outside of Australia was Great Britain. In Great Britain the big six had 36 per cent. In Australia the big two—they're claiming they've got somebody in to do the figures for them and they're saying 65 per cent. Hold on a minute. You're going to two per cent a year up to 2001, and you've done two per cent a year. Do you suddenly stop and go backwards? No. In your own reports you were skiting around how your market share was growing, both of you, over the next 10 years. Now it's 20 years and you're telling me you've gone down to 65 per cent from 70 per cent. Well, the only people not laughing at you are the people that have to go into your store and buy food. They're the people that are not laughing.

I repeat those figures. They had 50.1 per cent in 1991. In 10 years they had gone to 70 per cent of the market. They've been increasing at two per cent a year. So you can take the guess yourself. But I want my crossbench brothers and sisters to take cognisance of this, because there were two series. One was an ANAO P series and one was an ABS series. One said 68 per cent, and the other one said 72 per cent. Both series were discontinued two years after this place became aware of those figures. I rang up a person associated with the grocery world, who has long since left, and said, 'Why did you stop the series? He said, 'Why do you think?' That is all he said. They've even got the muscle to cover up their own success story, if you like.

For those that are worried about divestment, I've got to tell you that when Theodore Roosevelt broke up Esso, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey under Rockefeller, he broke it up into 32 companies. The value of the shareholders went up. Rockefeller knew that, so he bought a whole stack of shares before the break-up occurred. To anyone who's a shareholder: don't be worried, because your share prices are going to go up, not down.

I went to Coles the other night. It was about 11 o'clock at night, I think, and there was no-one there. You had to serve yourself. There are cameras on you. Are they looking after their employees? No. They're doing everything humanly possible to eliminate employees. That's how much they care about their employees, whilst paying themselves a salary of $10 million to $12 million a year—that they admit to. I just can't think of any situation in any country on earth where this sort of situation has prevailed.

Theodore Roosevelt had the courage to stand up to the richest and most powerful man on earth, Rockefeller. Roosevelt's face is carved on Mt Rushmore, along with Abraham Lincoln's, and justifiably so. Would that someone in here had a tiny bit of spine to stand up to these giants.

I've always had great faith in the Australian people. I take cognisance of the fact that there were two of us in here when I came in—just two of us on the crossbench—and now there are 17. In election after election those people that are in power are being knocked off. They richly deserve to be knocked off. We've got no manufacturing left in the country. We've got no industry in the country. Those industries that we do have have been flogged to death. As far as being able to buy something, well, no other country on earth has the concentration of market power that has occurred in Australia. What we're saying is: let's not muck around any longer. It's going to be Theodore Roosevelt time here and we're going to get there. We might not get there today, but we will get there. (Time expired)

Sharon Claydon

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Gee

I second the motion moved by the member for Kennedy. I commend him for bringing it to this House. I also commend the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark for introducing the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 in this House this morning. Those members have been ringing alarm bells on this issue for 10 years. They are true trailblazers, and now others are finally starting to listen. We want Australia to listen and we want all parties—all members of this House and those in the other place—to listen and to support our bill. It's very clear to everyone that right around this great country of ours supermarket giants have way too much market power. As the member for Kennedy so eloquently stated earlier, they have their snouts well and truly in the money trough and they are wallowing in massive profits. Things have to change. Farmers are being paid a pittance and consumers are being price gouged on the way through.

The member for Kennedy and the member for Clark recently dressed up as pigs in a lighthearted moment to draw attention to what is an extremely serious issue. It's an issue that just keeps getting worse. It's an urgent issue because we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and this bill would do something about it. It's no good having members of parliament wring their hands and shake their heads about how terrible the cost-of-living crisis is, saying something must be done. Today all members of this House will have a chance to do something—to vote for this legislation to be debated and get through this House this afternoon and this evening.

This bill would make a real difference in reducing the market power of the supermarket giants, and it would limit the mark-ups they can put on goods like fruit and vegetables. In Orange, New South Wales, we once had hundreds of orchards around our district. Now we would have fewer than 30. It's because farmers have not been able to see a future in farming. Why is that? Because the returns have not been there for them; because they've been slowly but surely ground down by the supermarket giants. So we want all parties to support this motion and this important bill. Let's not just talk the talk about market power and how dangerous this great market power in the hands of the supermarket giants is; let's walk the walk and do something.

Recently the member for Kennedy came to Orange in the Central West of New South Wales to draw attention to this very issue—and, yes, there were a couple of pigs there, too, holding up a sign! During our press conference we were disgracefully interrupted by a National Party senator, who yelled pathetic insults at us. It was appalling and it was very disappointing. The National Party should be backing us on this bill. The Liberal and Labor parties should be backing us on this bill as well, as should the Greens. Australia is sick of the talk. We need action. Parliament exists not just to hold inquiries, not just to feel everyone's pain, but to pass the laws and take the action that will make life better for the people that we represent.

Today the member for Kennedy drew attention to the massive mark-ups the supermarket giants are putting on everyday items like potatoes. Our farmers are crying out for a fair go and a better deal, and so are consumers, who are at breaking point. Our communities have had enough. This legislation is a true game changer. It divests the supermarkets of their power, reducing it to 20 per cent over five years. It also limits the mark-ups they can put on those items like potatoes and cherries and everything else, as the member for Kennedy so eloquently spoke about.

If you're not prepared to back your big talk with a vote in parliament—this is to the major parties—then you're all just about the hot air and the porkies. We want the parties to back up their words with deeds. Stop talking and start walking the walk. We want everyone to vote for the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill and help get those supermarket snouts out of the trough. Vote for this bill and make— (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Hume MP Angus Taylor (Liberal).

Amendment text

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Treasurer has failed to engage in negotiations with the Opposition on sensible proposals to support investment in the gas industry, which is the revenue base for this tax;

(b) the Government still cannot answer simple questions about this tax, including whether it is new or a bring forward of revenue, its impact on investment in the industry, and its impact on energy prices, despite having had more than six months to do so; and

(2) calls on the Government to support the Opposition’s proposals to support the future of the gas industry; and

(3) notes that the cynical and absurd stapling of changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to measures with cross-party support responding to the PwC and Tax Practitioners Board issue demonstrates the lack of seriousness from the Government towards this legislation”.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Melbourne MP Adam Bandt (Greens), which means it failed. The motion was to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place.

For votes: Greens.  

Against votes: Spender, Labor, Coalition.

Motion text

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Melbourne moving the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that since the House of Representatives' resolution of 16 October 2023 concerning Israel and Gaza, which supported the State of Israel's looming invasion of Gaza by stating that the House 'stands with Israel', the following have occurred:

(a) an appalling and increasing toll of deaths and injuries caused by the State of Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza;

(b) a growing humanitarian catastrophe caused by the State of Israel's blockade, bombing and invasion of Gaza; and

(c) the State of Israel is the subject of recent International Court of Justice orders in South Africa's case regarding the prevention of genocide;

(2) does not support the State of Israel's continued invasion of Gaza, and calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire; and

(3) calls on the Government to end its support for the State of Israel's invasion of Gaza.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the Senate amendments be agreed to." This means that the final version of the bill has now been agreed to in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and so it can now become law.

What does this bill do?

According to the bill homepage:

This bill is the result of the Senate dividing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 (original bill) into two bills. On 7 December 2023 the House of Representatives accepted the Senate’s action in dividing the bill. This page shows the procedural history of the original bill up to the time it was divided, and the title and description of the bill as divided by the Senate (see sheet PU108 of amendments to the original bill). For copies of the explanatory memoranda and amendments circulated to the original bill, see the homepage of the original bill.

This bill amends the:

• Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to: casual employment; enabling multiple franchisees to access the single-enterprise stream; transitioning from multi-enterprise agreements; model terms; intractable bargaining workplace determinations; workplace delegates’ rights; sham contracting; exemptions to waive entry requirements for suspected underpayment and increasing maximum penalties for underpayments; compliance notices; the definition of employment; minimum standards and increased dispute resolution for employee-like workers performing digital platform work and regulated road transport industry contractors; and removal of a sunsetted clause relating to applications to vary modern awards;

• Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to remove provisions relating to the withdrawal of parts of amalgamated organisations; and

• Independent Contractors Act 2006 to provide that the Act applies to independent contractors performing work remunerated at an amount exceeding the new contractor high income threshold; and

• Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 in relation to the appointment of certain directors to the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be now put.

This motion ends debate on the question (i.e., whether to agree with the Senate amendments), which will now be voted on straight away.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the Senate amendments be considered immediately. If the House of Representatives agrees with the Senate's amendments, then the bill can become law.

What does this bill do?

According to the bill homepage:

This bill is the result of the Senate dividing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 (original bill) into two bills. On 7 December 2023 the House of Representatives accepted the Senate’s action in dividing the bill. This page shows the procedural history of the original bill up to the time it was divided, and the title and description of the bill as divided by the Senate (see sheet PU108 of amendments to the original bill). For copies of the explanatory memoranda and amendments circulated to the original bill, see the homepage of the original bill.

This bill amends the:

• Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to: casual employment; enabling multiple franchisees to access the single-enterprise stream; transitioning from multi-enterprise agreements; model terms; intractable bargaining workplace determinations; workplace delegates’ rights; sham contracting; exemptions to waive entry requirements for suspected underpayment and increasing maximum penalties for underpayments; compliance notices; the definition of employment; minimum standards and increased dispute resolution for employee-like workers performing digital platform work and regulated road transport industry contractors; and removal of a sunsetted clause relating to applications to vary modern awards;

• Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to remove provisions relating to the withdrawal of parts of amalgamated organisations; and

• Independent Contractors Act 2006 to provide that the Act applies to independent contractors performing work remunerated at an amount exceeding the new contractor high income threshold; and

• Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 in relation to the appointment of certain directors to the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation.