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 Recently we've understood that the Japanese Kansai Electric Power Company has withdrawn from the proposal.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.

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:

(1) this House 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 earlier this year which divests supermarkets of this market power, specifically by setting market power limits with associated timeframes, providing significant penalties and establishing an oversight body; and

(e) the Government's legislation merely increasing penalties does nothing to reform the supermarket sector and will only further line the pockets of the legal fraternity, and the current code penalty of $64,000 has rarely, if ever, been enforced; and

(2) the Member for Kennedy be permitted to present the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 immediately, and the bill be given priority over all other business in order to stop any further delay in providing affordability to consumers and fairness to farmers.

Sharon Claydon

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Andrew Wilkie

I second the member for Kennedy's motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Leigh

Shortly I will present to the House the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024. That will put in place the penalties regime that will underpin a mandatory food and grocery code. The government will not be supporting the member for Kennedy's bill, because we are keen that the parliament move ahead with the most important reform to the food and grocery code this decade. This is a reform which is broadly supported by horticulture suppliers. It is the result of extensive engagement by the government, and I thank the National Farmers Federation, their horticulture council and the many people who have worked with Craig Emerson and his expert review.

This government is about getting a fairer deal for farmers and a fairer deal for families. When the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct was set up by the Liberals and Nationals in 2015, they set it up as a toothless voluntary code. Then, in 2018, when the member for Maranoa, now the shadow agriculture minister, was the agriculture minister, they reviewed it and they decided that it should remain a toothless voluntary code. Labor disagrees. We have worked constructively with the supplier groups in order to put in place what will soon be a mandatory food and grocery code of conduct with multimillion-dollar penalties. This change will be vital in changing the power imbalance between supermarkets and their suppliers. It is something that has been long called for. I acknowledge those suppliers who've spoken out confidentially and have said that under the current regime they feel there is a power imbalance that makes it impossible for them to deal with supermarkets without the risk of retaliation.

The food and grocery code's structure remains unchanged, but it's penalties significantly ramp up. Craig Emerson's work, in engaging with these groups, has made clear that the system that we were left by the Liberals and Nationals when we came to office was manifestly inadequate. The Liberals and Nationals left us with a system that was unable to deal with the concerns of farmers and unable to deal with the concerns of suppliers.

When we are concerned about the power of large firms, we'll often speak about monopoly power—about the way in which big firms can squeeze their consumers. But there's another concept that goes back to Joan Robinson, and that is monopsony power. Monopsony power is when you squeeze your suppliers—when you squeeze those upstream. It's when suppliers and workers can be hurt by the power of big firms throwing their weight around. Monopsony power is the evil twin of monopoly power.

In our supermarket reforms, we are dealing with both these evil twins. We're dealing with monopsony power through making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. We are dealing with monopoly power by our reforms to put in place an ACCC review of the way in which the supermarkets operate, through providing CHOICE with funding to carry out quarterly grocery price monitoring, providing Australians the information they need about where to get the very best deal at the checkout. We are providing the ACCC with resources to enforce the Unit Pricing Code, because Australians are sick of shrinkflation, sick of going into the supermarkets and finding that the pricing isn't the way it should be. So, through our reforms, we are ensuring that suppliers to supermarkets get a better deal and that consumers from supermarkets get a better deal.

Australia's supermarket sector is one of the most concentrated in the world. The top two supermarkets have two-thirds of the market. The top three supermarkets have three-quarters of the market. That is a more concentrated grocery sector than all but a couple of other countries in the OECD.

With great power comes great responsibility. It is important that we have reforms in place that deal with the potential of those large supermarkets to throw their weight around. We've heard stories about fresh produce suppliers going out of business because of their inability to get proper redress through the current toothless, voluntary Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. We've seen accounts of farmers who feel that, if they're bringing perishables to market and there are only a couple of places they can sell those perishables to, the current Food and Grocery Code of Conduct doesn't allow them to raise appropriate complaints.

I acknowledge the work that the code mediator has done, but the code mediator has been operating under a voluntary code. Chris Leptos has done his best work with the rules that are available to him, but the rules available to him—rules set up by the Liberal and National parties—just aren't good enough. A voluntary code of conduct was good enough for the Liberals and Nationals in office; it is not good enough for Labor in office. The agriculture minister, Julie Collins, has been a strong champion of a mandatory food and grocery code of conduct.

We, on this side, understand that competition can be a double squeeze on farmers. Farmers buy their inputs from highly concentrated sectors. There are sometimes only a few firms that supply certain tractors or from which you can buy your fertiliser or seeds. Farmers then sell into concentrated markets—just a couple of supermarkets, just a few processors. Farming itself is a pretty competitive industry. In a lot of sectors there are a lot of farmers. So they're competing against one another, but they're getting squeezed upstream and squeezed downstream. The consequence is that some farmers are just choosing to walk off the land.

The Albanese government understands this challenge. We recognise that the way in which competition policy works in Australia just isn't good enough for farmers. We understand that a more competitive and dynamic economy matters for the productivity of the entire economy but particularly matters in our farming sector. Our farming sector is almost a case study of the problems of a lack of dynamism and competition in the economy.

Under those opposite, we saw a rise in market concentration. We saw a rise in mark-ups, which is a fancy economics term for the gap between what it costs firms to produce a product and what they sell that product for. We saw a decline in the creation rate of employing small businesses. All of that suggests that a lack of competition is one of the reasons why productivity growth in the 2010s was so lousy under those opposite. They were asleep at the wheel when it came to competition policy, and Australia's productivity performance paid the price.

A revitalisation of competition policy will be good for productivity and will flow through to the wellbeing of Australian households. On the Productivity Commission's estimate, the national competition policy reforms of the 1990s boosted GDP by a permanent lift of 2.5 per cent. In today's money, that's $5,000 for every Australian household. The estimates that Treasury has done of a revitalisation of national competition policy again are of a similar order of magnitude. We now have the Senate considering the biggest merger reforms in 50 years, merger reforms that those opposite were too fearful to take on. I vividly remember, in August 2021, when Rod Sims, then the head of the ACCC, gave us a carefully considered speech in which he outlined the merger reforms supported by the ACCC. Treasurer Frydenberg ruled it out within hours. That's how unwilling those opposite were to consider competition reform to one of the most critical parts of the competition ecosystem.

We have worked constructively with business, we've engaged with stakeholders and we have brought to the parliament a merger shake-up which will ensure the system is more efficient, more transparent and more streamlined and that the ACCC focuses on the high-risk mergers, not the low-risk ones. I pay tribute to the Treasurer and the competition taskforce and their expert panel for their work on those reforms. Labor is the party of consumers. Labor is the party of competition. More competition means a better deal for consumers, a better deal for workers and a more productive and dynamic economy. A lack of competition has been holding Australia back. More competition will be good for our economy and will deliver for Australian households. I look forward, in a few moments, to being able to introduce Labor's fairer for farmers and families bill.

Maria Vamvakinou

Is the member for Kennedy seeking the call?

Bob Katter

I stood up before the minister to move my legislation—

Maria Vamvakinou

On a point of order?

Bob Katter

I'm just asking you for a ruling. I stood up before him. Deputy Speaker Claydon gave the call to him, and she said she'd come back to me for my legislation. Do I have a right to put the legislation forward or don't I?

Graham Perrett

You're suspending standing orders.

Bob Katter

You're not the Speaker, and I'd appreciate it if you'd shut up.

Maria Vamvakinou

The member for Kennedy has addressed his question to the Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to answer that question. My understanding is that you do not have another opportunity to speak, as you have already done so in this debate.

Bob Katter

I have not spoken in this debate—

Maria Vamvakinou

I'm sorry. I wasn't in the chair, but my understanding is that you have moved this motion, so as mover you have spoken already.

Bob Katter

I didn't get to speak. That's my point—

Andrew Giles

You've spoken. We heard you speak.

Maria Vamvakinou

The member for Kennedy will need leave to speak. I could either ask if leave is granted or give the call to the member for Calare.

Bob Katter

As I understand the orders, if I moved my legislation—

Maria Vamvakinou

Is leave granted for the member for Kennedy to speak?

Honourable members interjecting—

Through the chair, the proposition is that the member for Kennedy allow the Deputy Speaker to give the call to the member for Calare whilst a conversation takes place. That's my understanding.

Bob Katter

I'm not sure if I'm speaking on my bill or his bill. But it doesn't matter. If I'm just given the opportunity to speak, I'll take advantage of that opportunity. Now—

Maria Vamvakinou

The member for Kennedy doesn't have the call. The member for Kennedy is seeking leave. Is leave granted?

Andrew Giles

Leave is not granted.

Maria Vamvakinou

Leave is not granted. The member for Kennedy does not have the call.

Leave was not granted to the member for Kennedy; therefore, the member for Kennedy does not have leave to speak. I would ask that the member for Kennedy take—

I'm not sure that you can do that, member for Kennedy.

To assist the House, is the member for Calare seeking to speak on this motion? I give the call to the member for Calare, and I would ask the member for Kennedy to take his seat.

Long debate text truncated.

Clare O'Neil

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Albanese government has a pretty simple belief: we want ordinary Australians on normal incomes to have the chance to own their own homes. Today this parliament will make that happen for 40,000 Australians who would never otherwise have the chance of homeownership.

Lots of aspects of what's going on in Australia with housing concern me but the one I am most worried about is this: 40 years ago, 60 per cent of lower income young people in our country owned their own homes. Today, that is close to 20 per cent. Housing is not just about bricks and mortar. What this statistic tells us is that the life experience of low-income young people is fundamentally different to how it was experienced a generation ago, and our parliament must do something about that. We want more Australians to have the stability and security that come from homeownership, to be able to put family pictures on the wall and not be told they can't, to make decisions with confidence, to know they are raising children in a safe and stable environment; for older Australians, to be able to grow old with security. That is what this legislation is all about. This bill is about Australia's nurses, childcare workers and disability workers. It is about older women who otherwise might be facing a retirement in poverty. It is about single parents who might be able to purchase the home that meets the needs of their families. This scheme builds on the enormous success of programs around the country run by state governments. In Western Australia, more than 100,000 Australians have gone into homeownership through a shared equity scheme.

Help to Buy is one piece of our government's very bold and ambitious housing agenda—$32 billion supporting our country to build more homes, get a better deal for renters and get more Australians into homeownership. Thousands of hardworking Australians who have been locked out of the market will now have a better shot at owning their own home. I want to say briefly of Minister Collins, who sits behind me, this would not have happened without her hard work and the work of her office, and I want to credit my staff also. I want to thank the crossbench. There are some people on the crossbench who bring enormous expertise and constructive dialogue with our government on housing and I thank them for that. And I thank the Greens, who eventually presided passage for this bill.

For all of us in this parliament, politics has many, many moments which feel highly performative and meaningless and then you get moments like this. It is not often that our parliament has the opportunity to change the lives of 40,000 people who need and deserve the help of government but we have that chance today. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael Sukkar

We will not be supporting these amendments, because these amendments highlight the absolute absurdity of this policy. These amendments deal with the potential interactions with state and territory governments, which highlight the fundamental problems with this approach—that is, that we are taking schemes that have existed at a state level in virtually every jurisdiction in this country and bringing them national.

Australians have already voted with their feet on shared equity schemes. Why? Because in states like New South Wales, which had a shared equity scheme, more than 90 per cent of the places available went unused. So what genius in the Labor Party thinks, in the midst of the worst housing crisis ever, 'What policy should we come up with? What innovation, what new thinking should we come up with? Oh, let's take shared equity schemes at a state level and bring them to the Commonwealth.'

Meanwhile we have seen these schemes fail at a state level. Australians watching this may ask: why have shared equity schemes largely failed throughout our country? Because it is all care and no responsibility from the government. The government gets to take a share in your home. There are events that occur, including if your income rises, that might trigger a sale of that property against your will as a co-owner. The government will take their pound of flesh on the upside, but guess what? Even though the government gets to take their pound of flesh at the end, you, as the Australian co-owner of that property with the government, are responsible for every cost on the way through—all the repairs, all the maintenance, all the costs associated with owning that property—yet the government as a silent co-owner steps in at the end, having contributed nothing to those costs, and says, 'We will take our 40 per cent, thank you, including the capital growth in that property.'

So it's no real surprise that Australians have rejected these things. They don't want the Labor Party co-owning their property. It's absurd that, in an environment where this government has brought in 1.4 million migrants with no idea where they're going to live, which is doing them no favours and doing Australians no favours, their answer—their big solution, the new thinking, the innovation in their policy—is to replicate shared-equity schemes that have failed virtually everywhere else. They are bereft of ideas. They've got no idea what they are doing. It's no wonder we see it reflected in every single metric. The scoreboard is very clear. The scoreboard does not lie. We have fewer homes being built. We have fewer homes being approved. We've got fewer first home buyers. On every single metric in this country, housing has gone backwards. And what's the big idea from this government? Replicate shared-equity schemes that already exist elsewhere.

The other part of the story that is inconvenient but highlighted by these amendments is that all of these require state and territory governments to pass their own legislation, again highlighting that these are the province of state governments. The Prime Minister said yesterday that they'd all signed up. Only Queensland has passed their legislation so far. I hate to rain on the minister's parade of this being a heroic moment for her, but this means very little today outside of Queensland because no other state or territory has passed their legislation. This means very little because, until they are passed in state parliaments, this today and these amendments do not take practical effect for any single person who may want one of these products.

Having said that, we know that these have been unused throughout our country. Victoria is winding up their scheme. In New South Wales, again, 90 per cent of places went unused. So again I highlight the point: if you're thinking how you can help first home buyers, why on earth would you replicate a product that's already been rejected? Why on earth would you claim that that is some massive solution to the huge problem that has been exacerbated by the very poor decisions of this government? Quite frankly, we know you've run out of ideas. We know your heart is not in homeownership. Only the coalition believes in home— (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese

This is a good day in the people's house and it's a good day for people looking to buy a house. Today our government delivers on a commitment that I put at the centre of my campaign launch in Perth back in May 2022. It has taken some time to get agreement through this House and through the Senate, but what we have done is make sure that today this becomes policy of the nation. The name of this policy, the name of the bill, tells you everything you need to know: Help to Buy. But those opposite don't want to help people and they certainly don't want people to buy their own home. This is new help for 10,000 aspiring homeowners every year and a new road to homeownership for hardworking Australians.

We've held to this policy in the face of reckless obstructionism and rank opportunism. We've persevered even when we were told there was no chance that it would get through this parliament. We've stood our ground because we care about helping more Australians know the security of a roof over their heads because our Labor government supports the aspiration of homeownership and we want to bring that dream in reach of more Australians. That's what this bill is about. It's a circuit breaker for Australians who have done all the right things. They've worked hard, made sacrifices and saved up as best they can, but they can't save for a 20 per cent deposit and pay rent at the same time. They just can't get their foot in the door. What we've done to support renters, of course, is to be the first government in 30 years to boost rent assistance not once but two years in a row, and we've worked with the state and territories to strengthen renters' rights, but we don't think everyone should have to rent forever.

We don't think you should have to settle for paying off someone else's mortgage when you could be settling on a home of your own. And that's why we're stepping up and helping out. Our Help to Buy plan will put in in 30 per cent of the purchase price of an existing home and 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home. That cuts your deposit to as little as two per cent. That means you pay less up-front, you have a smaller mortgage and your monthly repayments are smaller too. We are doing this because we know that a home of your own is more than a place to live. It's about security and opportunity, stability and a sense of connection to your local community. It's a foundation on which you can build a good life for yourself and your family, and that's why this legislation is just one vital part of our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan, all of it driving our ambitious target of building 1.2 million new homes by the end of the decade, because we know that the key is, of course, supply.

That's why we're also training more tradies through free TAFE, also opposed by those opposite, building more social housing, public housing and private rentals through our Build to Rent scheme, which we hope to see pass this parliament this week as well, and building more crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence, opposed by those opposite as well and delayed by the Senate, through the Housing Australia Future Fund. We're working with state, territory and local governments across Australia to cut red tape, speed up approvals, unlock more land for construction and build more homes where people want to live, close to family, jobs, services and public transport. These are the practical and positive messages you get from a Labor government.

There's something else all those measures have in common: they have all been opposed at every turn by the Liberal and National Parties. The Liberals talk a lot about homeownership. The shadow minister yesterday was down there talking with the Greens political party at the Press Club. I'll give him credit for this: unlike his leader, he does know where the National Press Club is! So that's a plus. I give him credit. Yet all they have done is oppose everything—oppose more social housing, oppose more public housing, oppose support for people who are renting and oppose more private rentals through the Build to Rent scheme. That is what they have done. Well, Labor stands for homeownership and aspiration. We stand up for superannuation, not trashing it, as those opposite want to do. And today, we send a clear message to Australians looking for help to buy a home: our Labor government is on your side, and I'm proud to join my colleagues in commending this bill to the House.

Clare O'Neil

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

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

Rebekha Sharkie

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "Providers of certain kinds" in section 63A, insert:

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 23), omit "penalty", substitute "penalties".

(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (after line 13), after section 63E, insert:

63EA Civil penalty for requiring identification documents

(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not require an individual to produce an identification document for the purposes of verifying the age of the individual.

Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.

(2) In this section:

identification document means a document or other thing that:

(a) contains identification information; and

(b) can be used to identify an individual; and

(c) is issued by or on behalf of a government authority.

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (after line 2), after paragraph 63J(a), insert:

(aa) has contravened section 63EA (requiring identification documents); or

(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (after line 3), after paragraph (da), insert:

(daa) section 63EA;

I will not hold the House for long. The amendments seek to address age verification, and this bill explicitly defers the commencement of age verification to provide the industry and the eSafety Commissioner with sufficient time to develop and implement appropriate systems. My amendment would prevent social media platforms and other tech giants from requiring personal ID documentation for the purposes of age verification. Personal data is highly valued by corporations and particularly by social media companies, and so I think it's incredibly important that we do not provide an environment that greenlights the harvesting of personal data under the guise of protecting under-16s. I therefore call on the House to support these amendments to provide some safety around this bill for the personal data of millions of Australians with social media accounts.

Sharon Claydon

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. All those of that opinion—do you wish to have the call, Assistant Minister?

Kate Thwaites

I move:

That the question be now put.

Sharon Claydon

The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

What is the member for Warringah after?

Zali Steggall

I just want a clarification. The member for Mayo moved her amendments. I understood the Deputy Speaker to have put the question on the amendments. The assistant minister—

Sharon Claydon

No, I stated the question; I didn't put the question, and the assistant minister has moved that the question be put now. If it helps the House, the question before us is that the question be put.

Allegra Spender

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (after line 21), at the end of section 239B, add:

(4) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the Minister must, within 6 months after receiving the report:

(a) cause to be prepared a statement setting out:

(i) the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations; and

(ii) if the Commonwealth Government has not accepted a recommendation—the reasons for not accepting the recommendation; and

(b) cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

The evidence is clear that social media platforms are not safe for our kids, and the community wants action. While I have great concerns around the process around the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, I will be supporting this bill. In Wentworth, more than nine in 10 people who responded to my community survey said they were concerned about the impact of social media on young people, highlighting issues like online bullying, screen addiction and exposure to harmful content. Parents in my community want their kids growing up playing outside with their friends, building real relationships with real people, rather than being stuck inside staring at a screen. As a parent myself, that is what I want for my children too. But, even if it is done right, imposing a minimum age of 16 for social media is a blunt instrument and an unprecedented intervention into the lives of our young people.

For such a profound piece of legislation, the haste with which the government has rushed this through the parliament, the lack of engagement that has been undertaken with certain affected stakeholders and the unanswered questions that remain for many parliamentarians is concerning, including what happened in the House just now, where the minister did not even deign to reply to the issues raised in consideration-in-detail amendments by the member for Goldstein. This is absolutely riding roughshod over parliament in a completely unacceptable and unaccountable way.

I want this legislation to work, but the jury is out in terms of whether it will actually be able to have the impact that people want it to and the practicality of whether it can be put in place. That is why I believe it's absolutely critical that, after the ban has been implemented, we have a robust process in place to assess its effectiveness and adjust our approach accordingly. We need to be guided by the evidence, not by obstinacy. Clause 239B of the bill requires the government to commission an independent review of the social media minimum age ban two years after it comes into effect. The independent review is welcome and important. It gives the government of the day the chance to review whether the plan is working and adapt its approach if not. It will have the benefit of evidence from the government's age-assurance trial, the duty of care for social media companies hopefully having been legislated and the two years worth of data on the effectiveness of the ban. However, on the way the review provision is currently drafted, my understanding is that there is not currently a requirement for the government to respond to the review's recommendations. This creates the potential for a scenario like we have with gambling ads, where a detailed inquiry has made clear recommendations to the government and yet we are still waiting for a proper response.

My amendment would ensure that this does not happen by requiring the government to formally respond to any recommendations made by the independent review within six months of receiving it. It is a modest and commonsense amendment that reflects similar requirements in places like New South Wales, where the government of the day is required to provide a formal response to certain inquiries within six months. I understand that the government does not intend to support any amendments in the House, but I would request that the minister commits today to provide a formal response to the independent review as and when it is presented in a few years time.

Catherine King

I move:

That the question be now put.

Sharon Claydon

The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Adam Bandt

Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding was that you called 'ring the bells for one minute'. It's well past one minute.

Sharon Claydon

I corrected myself and said four minutes. The question is that the question be now put.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

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