Mr Clare - I move: That the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.

For votes: Labor, Green  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

Peter Dutton

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) unequivocally condemns the attacks on Israel by Hamas and other terrorist organisations that took place one year ago and the vow made by the perpetrators to repeat these attacks indefinitely;

(2) recognises that these heinous acts of terrorism took place after a long period of quiet at the Israel-Gaza border and involved the deliberate targeting, murder, rape and mutilation of civilians including women, children and the elderly, Jewish and Arab, as well as the taking of hostages and indiscriminate rocket fire by the terrorists at civilian population centres in Israel to inflict maximum damage;

(3) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages;

(4) condemns the murder of hostages and the inhumane conditions and violence, including sexual violence, that hostages have experienced;

(5) stands with Israel and affirms its inherent right to defend itself and protects its citizens;

(6) recognises that Israel shares the same liberal democratic values as Australia and other western nations and affirms that Israel's battle is a battle fought against the enemies of civilised people everywhere;

(7) recognises that this entire conflict is between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran acts through its proxies, all of whom are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel;

(8) acknowledges the devastating loss of life and mass displacement of Israelis and Palestinians as a result of the war sparked by Hamas on 7 October 2023;

(9) condemns antisemitism in all its forms and the jealousies and falsehoods that lie at the foundations of this hateful prejudice;

(10) pledges to redouble efforts to work with Australia's Jewish community to ensure that the rise in antisemitism in Australian society is properly repudiated and addressed;

(11) emphasises the importance of mutual respect as individuals go about expressing their diverse views on the conflict in Australia;

(12) condemns all acts of hatred, division or violence, affirming that they have no place in Australia;

(13) reiterates the responsibility of each Australian to safeguard the harmony and unity that define our diverse society, especially in times of adversity;

(14) condemns the actions of those seeking to celebrate and promote the barbarous actions of terrorist organisations;

(15) reaffirms that symbols of terror and discord are unwelcome in Australia and undermine our nation's peace and security;

(16) condemns all forms of hate speech and violent extremism, including antisemitism, as repugnant to our shared national values which uphold the freedom and dignity of every Australian; and

(17) notes that fostering fear and division undermines social cohesion and risks Australia's domestic security.

Leave not granted.

Unbelievable! I move:

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

(1) unequivocally condemns the attacks on Israel by Hamas and other terrorist organisations that took place one year ago and the vow made by the perpetrators to repeat these attacks indefinitely;

(2) recognises that these heinous acts of terrorism took place after a long period of quiet at the Israel-Gaza border and involved the deliberate targeting, murder, rape and mutilation of civilians including women, children and the elderly, Jewish and Arab, as well as the taking of hostages and indiscriminate rocket fire by the terrorists at civilian population centres in Israel to inflict maximum damage;

(3) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages;

(4) condemns the murder of hostages and the inhumane conditions and violence, including sexual violence, that hostages have experienced;

(5) stands with Israel and affirms its inherent right to defend itself and protects its citizens;

(6) recognises that Israel shares the same liberal democratic values as Australia and other western nations and affirms that Israel's battle is a battle fought against the enemies of civilised people everywhere;

(7) recognises that this entire conflict is between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran acts through its proxies, all of whom are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel;

(8) acknowledges the devastating loss of life and mass displacement of Israelis and Palestinians as a result of the war sparked by Hamas on 7 October 2023;

(9) condemns antisemitism in all its forms and the jealousies and falsehoods that lie at the foundations of this hateful prejudice;

(10) pledges to redouble efforts to work with Australia's Jewish community to ensure that the rise in antisemitism in Australian society is properly repudiated and addressed;

(11) emphasises the importance of mutual respect as individuals go about expressing their diverse views on the conflict in Australia;

(12) condemns all acts of hatred, division or violence, affirming that they have no place in Australia;

(13) reiterates the responsibility of each Australian to safeguard the harmony and unity that define our diverse society, especially in times of adversity;

(14) condemns the actions of those seeking to celebrate and promote the barbarous actions of terrorist organisations;

(15) reaffirms that symbols of terror and discord are unwelcome in Australia and undermine our nation's peace and security;

(16) condemns all forms of hate speech and violent extremism, including antisemitism, as repugnant to our shared national values which uphold the freedom and dignity of every Australian; and

(17) notes that fostering fear and division undermines social cohesion and risks Australia's domestic security.

The reason that this is so important and that the parliament should deal with this issue now is that yesterday, across the country, indeed across the world, people of decency and good heart commemorated the slaughter of 1,200 people—innocent men, women and children—12 months ago to the day. It's incumbent upon this parliament to pass a motion which reflects that sorrow and which records our deep regret at the actions that Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, took against unarmed civilians—the murder, rape and slaughter of people in their homes and the mowing down of young, innocent people celebrating a music festival.

The opportunity for us today to speak with a united voice is represented by this motion. This motion was first put to the Prime Minister on the weekend in a spirit of bipartisanship, in a spirit of sending a united message to the Jewish community here, to the State of Israel and to all good people around the world that this parliament strongly and without equivocation condemns the actions of Hamas, and we commemorate the lives, we thank the heroes who saved lives on the day, and we repeat our want for antisemitism to come to an end in our country.

October 7 is not the day, is not the occasion—on the 12-month anniversary or any anniversary subsequent to this, when we should concentrate on matters other than that which is most immediately at hand. That's the point we make here today. Over the past 12 months, as has been commented on by Jewish leaders and as was obvious in Melbourne last night—where the Prime Minister was booed by the Jewish people who were in attendance at that function—people have found the Prime Minister's position completely and utterly untenable. Australians across the country ought to know that their Prime Minister can stand up for a view and argue it on behalf of Australians, to prosecute his position and ultimately to prevail. But this is not that Prime Minister.

This Prime Minister has tried to walk on both sides of the street, and it was evidenced in the failed motion put forward by the government today. It tries to please everybody, as this Prime Minister always seeks to do. And ultimately he pleases no-one at all. Out of respect today, we ask the Prime Minister to come back into the chamber, to reassess his position and to support this motion. The minister wouldn't give us permission or grant leave for this motion to be brought on. So, we seek to suspend standing orders so that proper debate can take place, because people who are living in this country at the moment—Holocaust survivors, for example—who for the first time in this country, in their new life that they started in this country after the end of the Second World War, feel scared. They are open in their condemnation of the antisemitism that is now rife within our community, that in large part sprung to life in our country on the steps of the Opera House on 9 October.

On 9 October, the Prime Minister didn't have words of condemnation. The foreign minister was calling for restraint from Israel on the day of the attacks on the kibbutzes and at the music festival site. That's what the government had in its heart and its mind from the very first day. Since that time, on university campuses, for months and months and months, the radical protesters have known no boundaries. We see the elements out on the weekend within the community, and following up on protests from last week, where they're flying Hezbollah flags and celebrating the life of a listed terrorist organisation leader who had been responsible for the death not just of Israelis but of people across to Middle East—a person who had masterminded a number of terrorist attacks, resulting in the loss of life of people from many countries. Those people were able to march, and at the time we were told that there was no offence for marching, waving flags and holding up photos of that dreadful individual. The world is a better place for him having left it. That's the reality.

Yet this Prime Minister tried to tell us that there were no offences, that the Australian Federal Police had looked at it and there was nothing to see here. As it turned out, that was not true. All it has done is exacerbate the pain and the hurt of the Jewish community in this country. The Prime Minister today, in a motion which should be solely dedicated to remembering the lives of those who were slaughtered on 7 October, has extended it well beyond that, for the reasons I have outlined. The fact that on the weekend we saw people who were willing to march on the streets in our country to celebrate the one-year anniversary of people being slaughtered demonstrates how far from reality this debate has swung and how the Prime Minister of our country could have looked to any one of his predecessors, Labor or Liberal, and taken a different path but has chosen not to. He has departed from decades of Labor Party policy.

Why would that be the case? Why would the Prime Minister be at odds with the Jewish community? Why would he be at odds with the people of Israel and the State of Israel, for whom Australia has been a reliable partner and ally for decades? Why would the Prime Minister be at odds with Howard's position, with Hawke's position, with Keating's position, with Abbott's position, with Rudd's position and with Gillard's position? It's because this Prime Minister sees domestic political advantage in the position that he's taken. That is how disgraceful the position is. And the fact that the Prime Minister doesn't seek to associate himself with this motion and support it, not just in essence but in spirit as well, reflects so poorly on his character and his weakness of leadership.

I say to the Jewish community here in Australia: the coalition dedicate ourselves to making sure that we stamp out antisemitism in this country. I don't want to see armed guards standing at schools and preschools in Jewish communities. I want to see every Australian treated equally. I want to see no Australian discriminated against. I want to see no racism in our country. But the point today is that this Prime Minister has had the opportunity—and has squibbed it—to support a motion which is truly dedicated to supporting the memory and lives of those 1,200 who were slaughtered. (Time expired)

Sharon Claydon

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Ms Kearney - I move: That the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.

For votes:, Labor, Green  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

Michael Sukkar

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That this House:

(1) condemns:

(a) the ongoing violent and antisemitic protests taking place in Melbourne;

(b) the conduct of protestors who yesterday threw acid, faeces, canned food and bottles at police, punched horses and destroyed property;

(c) the protestors for the effect of their actions on law-abiding Victorians, including business owners who had their trade disrupted and property destroyed;

(d) the protestors for their attempts to jostle and manhandle journalists;

(e) the protestors for the physical and emotional toll their actions are taking on police and emergency services, men and women who have a sworn duty to protect the community and should not be subjected to this behaviour; and

(f) all those who take part in, encourage, or gave comfort to the violent protests; and

(2) calls on:

(a) state and federal authorities to charge and prosecute all people who engage in any sort of violent protest activity to the full extent of the law; and

(b) the Australian Greens to publicly condemn the actions of Victorian MP Gabrielle de Vietri, who has taken part in the violent protests.

Leave not granted.

I move:

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

That this House:

(1) condemns:

(a) the ongoing violent and antisemitic protests taking place in Melbourne;

(b) the conduct of protestors who yesterday threw acid, faeces, canned food and bottles at police, punched horses and destroyed property;

(c) the protestors for the effect of their actions on law-abiding Victorians, including business owners who had their trade disrupted and property destroyed;

(d) the protestors for their attempts to jostle and manhandle journalists;

(e) the protestors for the physical and emotional toll their actions are taking on police and emergency services, men and women who have a sworn duty to protect the community and should not be subjected to this behaviour; and

(f) all those who take part in, encourage, or gave comfort to the violent protests; and

(2) calls on:

(a) state and federal authorities to charge and prosecute all people who engage in any sort of violent protest activity to the full extent of the law; and

(b) the Australian Greens to publicly condemn the actions of Victorian MP Gabrielle de Vietri, who has taken part in the violent protests.

We have to suspend standing orders. It's an outrage that leave was not granted by this government. In fact, it's quite outrageous that we have not seen any statements in this House from the government on what is happening in Victoria right now at the Land Forces expo.

The Police Association of Victoria secretary described the people who are perpetrating this violence against our policemen and women as 'filthy, disgusting animals', and, on that, we entirely agree with the Police Association of Victoria secretary. Our policemen and women should not be referred to as 'animals on horses'. Protesters were chanting, 'Get those animals off the horses.' I'm here to send a message to every single man and woman in a police force around this country—and, most importantly, to those men and women who are protecting Victorians at a most critical time in Victoria—that the Australian coalition, the opposition in parliament, stands with you and thanks you for everything you are doing with these violent, radical left-wing protesters.

It is an absolute disgrace that 27 police officers have been injured in my home state of Victoria by this absolute rabble who have descended on the Land Forces expo. Twenty-seven police officers have been injured, and countless other police officers have had faeces, acid and cans thrown at them when they're doing nothing more than their duty of protecting Victorians. It is quite outrageous as well that this rabble is being given aid and comfort from no less than MPs in the Victorian parliament including the Greens MP referred to in my motion, Gabrielle de Vietri. It's remarkable, quite frankly, that we have not seen a statement in this House in solidarity with those men and women who are protecting Victorians.

And, let's not forget, it's not just the most amazing men and women that you can find, those in our police forces, who run towards danger and who don't run away from it when protecting Victorians, that are suffering; everyday Victorians are having their lives disrupted by this absolute rabble—or, as the Police Association of Victoria secretary refers to them, 'filthy, disgusting animals'. They are stopping everyday Victorians from getting around their city and being able to live their lives. How many people yesterday missed an important medical appointment because of this absolute rabble going on in the city? How many businesses, not just businesses in our CBD but businesses more broadly, have been affected by this absolute rabble that is occurring in our city?

I can tell you that people around Australia are looking at Victoria and saying, 'That is not who we are, and that is not the sort of country that we want.' We certainly don't want that spreading from Victoria any further. That's why we need leadership from this government. We need them to actually be giving the speech that I'm giving. We would have given the government leave to do this because it is so important that we send a strong message to those men and women.

Now, it's very easy for those opposite to be angry at me while our policemen and women are standing right now in the face of the fury from this absolute rabble, not to mention the police horses that are being mishandled and mistreated as well. They are there to protect Victorians and the least they deserve is some encouragement from the government that we stand with them. Well, the coalition—the opposition—will provide that sense of support to our men and women who, as we speak, will be doing what they did yesterday, supporting Victorians. It's a disgrace, quite frankly, that 27 of those men and women, the most outstanding people that you can find in our community, have been treated as human punching bags by this absolute rabble, by these 'filthy, disgusting animals', as referred to by the Police Association of Victoria.

Quite frankly, I think many Australians are looking at this as a seminal moment, because, since 7 October, we have seen these radical left-wing troublemakers—rabble rousers—causing disruption to our community wherever they possibly can. This is the professional protester set. Anything they can possibly protest on they will. As one gentleman reported yesterday, who had been held up for hours in traffic, as he finally got through, yelled out the window, 'Get a job', to most of those protesters. I suspect that's the view of most law-abiding Australians who are going about their business at a time when Australians are struggling to put food on the table, to pay their mortgages, to pay their rent, to pay their electricity bills. Their businesses and their lives are being disrupted by people who are, quite frankly, sitting there living off the government and finding any opportunity to protest. Treating our most amazing men and women in our police force, in the Victoria Police, as human punching bags is an absolute disgrace. We should send a very strong message that it will not be accepted, and no more of this softly-softly business with these protesters.

We all in this House defend people's right to protest. In the lead-up to these so-called protests in the last few weeks, we were assured by these disgusting individuals that they would be protesting peacefully. Well, we now know that they are abject liars at the same time. If any of them now want to claim that we saw yesterday was a peaceful protest then they are more bizarre-o than any of us could imagine. It was so far from being peaceful. We do not support violent protests like this. We will condemn it in this House. We expect, and Australians have an expectation, that our Prime Minister will stand up and condemn it in the strongest terms.

The leadership of this country starts from the Prime Minister and it is a disgrace that he is being quiet. As to the coalition partner of this government in the Greens, it's quite frankly shocking to me, and I think even to those people opposite me, that an MP in the Victorian parliament—an MP!—has taken part in these violent protests.

MP Gabrielle de Vietri from the Greens political party has engaged in a so-called protest that has led to 27 policemen and women being injured, some of them being hospitalised, and people chanting, 'Get those animals off the horses.' Well, I'm here to tell those 'disgusting, filthy animals'—in the words of the Police Association of Victoria secretary—that those are not animals on horses; they are the best of Australia. They are the absolute best men and women, as I said, who go out every single day and put their safety on the line to protect their fellow Australians. They should be revered. The police should not be treated as human punching bags by a bunch of rabble, by disgusting, filthy animals who are living off the government and living off the hard work of the police, quite frankly. For that very reason, it is important that we suspend standing orders and make very clear to our men and women in the police forces, not just in Victoria but throughout our country, we stand with you. You are the best of Australia and we are here in solidarity.

Steve Georganas

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Long debate text truncated.

Anthony Albanese

The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 brings together two great Labor economic reforms: universal superannuation and paid parental leave. It brings together the two things that drive our government: delivering for people here and now, and building for the future. This is about a modern economy that works for modern families, and it represents another vital step forward in our government's commitment to economic equality for the women of Australia.

We reflected on this commitment in the caucus room of the Labor party on Monday evening. We came together to celebrate 30 years since delegates to the 1994 Australian Labor Party National Conference took the decision to adopt affirmative action with the aim of equal representation. I spoke in that debate as a rank-and-file delegate, one of the 99 who made that decision that has made a difference to our party and, therefore, made a difference to the nation. Ten years after the great Susan Ryan gave Australia the Sex Discrimination Act, Labor took the crucial step of adopting quotas for women to be preselected in winnable seats, and every day that we come into this place we can see the wonderful, history-making consequence: Australia's first ever government made up of a majority of female members. When we look across to the other side of the chamber, we see the consequences of not supporting women to enter parliament in safe seats.

Australia's first ever female majority government keeps delivering result after result. It is absolutely true that men can make decisions that benefit women as well as that women can make decisions that benefit women, but, when you have a caucus room, a cabinet and a ministry made up of equal representation, you ensure that it is never an afterthought. Gender equity in this country is front and centre. I want to see a parliament that looks like Australia and looks like the Australian people, not just in gender terms but in faith, in ethnicity and in background. That is what my government is moving towards, more and more.

It makes a difference. The number of women in the workforce is at a record high. The gender pay gap has been reduced to 11.5 per cent, reduced by almost three per cent in just two years. We have established 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave because no woman should ever have to choose between her financial security and her physical and mental safety. We are lifting wages in aged care and child care, two workforces which are dominated by women. Later today, the Minister for Education will introduce into this chamber the legislation for the 15 per cent increase in the pay of early educators, an important step forward. Those people—by and large feminised work forces that look after our youngest Australians and our oldest Australians in aged care—will get not just our thanks but also the wages that they deserve, in order to show them respect and in order to make sure that those important services can attract the workers and the skilled workers that they need.

We reformed the tax cuts that we inherited and made them fairer for working women. Under Labor's tax cuts, every female taxpayer got a tax cut, and nine out of 10 got a bigger tax cut because we still have that wage differential. Lower income people who will benefit from that decrease from 19 cents down to 16 cents in that first marginal tax rate—rather than the $4,500 reduction in the tax cuts that people in this parliament and other high-income earners will receive—will tend to spend more; they have a higher propensity to consume and spend it rather than save it. When we sat in cabinet, we got that analysis from the Treasury. The reason that isn't inflationary is that it will encourage more women into the workforce. It will encourage more workforce participation through working an extra day or two or re-entering the workforce earlier after having a child or after an absence from the workforce for some other reason. This is critical reform, just as cheaper child care for 1.2 million families that we have delivered is important, providing cost-of-living relief, investment in early education and economic reform that delivers for women. Making child care cheaper makes it easier for parents to return to work sooner. Doing so, of course, boosts productivity and participation.

Last Friday, I announced the next step in our work to address the national challenge of family and domestic violence, a package that includes an investment of $3.9 billion in a new national access to justice partnership, the biggest single Commonwealth investment in legal assistance ever since Federation. In our first budget, we delivered the biggest expansion in paid parental leave since the previous Labor government created it. There's a pattern here. The big reforms—the big changes that take Australia forward—are done by the Australian Labor Party.

In our first budget we delivered that expansion from 20 weeks to 26 weeks, a full six months. We are making paid parental leave more flexible as well, so parents can share the caring responsibilities and share the experience. Through this legislation being debated here this morning, we are adding superannuation to paid parental leave. This is what happens when women have a seat at the table and seats in the parliament. This is the progress our nation can achieve. This is how Australia can draw on the potential of all of our citizens, not just some. This is how we continue to build an economy that works for people, not the other way around.

The first months of your child's life are so special—exhausting at times, but uplifting. Every day brings new challenges and new joys. You can't put a price on spending that precious time with your new bub, and you shouldn't pay a price for it, either. No mother should be penalised for taking time away from work to do the most important job there is. That is the principle behind paid parental leave and that is the principle behind adding superannuation to it.

This will help narrow the gender gap in retirement savings. We know that, at the moment, that gender gap is around about 25 per cent. We also know that that has an impact on the rising rates of homelessness we've seen in older women. The sector that has seen the biggest growth in homelessness in this country over the most recent period, the last decade, is older women. The relationship between lower retirement savings and that is direct and is clear. This will deliver greater economic security for around 180,000 families this year by adding the extension of paid parental leave. Superannuation being paid will make an enormous difference.

When we announced this change back in April, I, together the member for Richmond, met some new mums and their children in Ballina. It was a terrific day. It was with The Parenthood as well, led by the remarkable Georgie Dent. They spoke to me directly about what it meant. Caitlin said:

It's so important that super will be paid as part of the paid parental leave. A lot of women get to retirement age, and they don't the same amount of funds as men do, and it's so important for their financial security.

Ebony said:

Having the super there shows that we value the role of mothers in society and acknowledge what they do is worth paying for.

I can't put it better than that. This legislation affirms our government's respect for the women of Australia, and it's a renewal of our commitment to economic equality.

I would have thought this was legislation that should have just sailed through the parliament—legislation that those opposite would looked at, thought about and said: 'Yes. The time has come.' But, of course, that's not the case. They still don't get superannuation and the important role that it plays in economic security. They never see an issue for which superannuation shouldn't be raided. We now hear that it should be raided for home purchases. We have had proposals that women who are the victims of domestic violence should raid their superannuation as well. Now, with this issue, we don't have them saying, 'Yes, it's a good idea that people have higher retirement incomes and that we close that 25 per cent gap in equality.' They have a range of options, but none of them are about superannuation and none of them are about higher retirement incomes for working women. They just don't get it. So ideological is their opposition to the concept of universal superannuation that they've never seen any reason why it shouldn't be raided over and over again.

They apparently have a range of proposals and alternatives here—lump sum payments, extensions of terms and a range of things—all of which would destroy the very reason why this legislation is coming forward. They should go and talk to working women about why this is an important initiative. This is something that has come from women in the business community. This is something that has come from women in the union movement. This is something that has come from women in civil society and from equity advocates, but those opposite are going to, once again, try and undermine it.

This is the writing of another chapter in the Labor story of fair pay, better conditions of work and dignity and security in retirement, and I'm very proud to join my colleagues in commending this bill to the House.

Amanda Rishworth

I'd like to thank all of those who have contributed to this important debate on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. This bill is the third significant improvement the Albanese government has made to paid parental leave. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is an important step to reducing the gender gap in retirement savings and supporting a dignified retirement for more Australians.

The government has listened to calls from the union movement, the women's movement, economists and employers. We know that women make up the majority of primary caregivers in this country. We know that women with children face an average 55 per cent drop in earnings in the first five years of parenthood. We know that the effect of lower income compounds over time, increasing the gap between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. The data is clear: women retire with around 25 per cent less super than men.

What we are doing with this bill is a making a positive investment into the future of working women. For babies born or adopted from 1 July 2025, this bill delivers all eligible parents an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly to their super fund. This super contribution will match the superannuation guarantee rate and will include an additional interest component. It will rise with any future increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee. Around 180,000 families will benefit from the changes each year. Once the paid parental leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026, based on the superannuation guarantee rate of 12 per cent, the maximum amount a family will receive in superannuation contributions is around $3,150.

This bill has been warmly welcomed by parents, employers, unions and economists. It has been praised as an important step to narrow the gender pay gap and boost women's financial security, and it builds on the government's broader efforts to strengthen the superannuation system, including legislating the objective of superannuation, making superannuation concessions fairer and more sustainable and criminalising superannuation theft.

I note the second reading amendment moved by the member for Deakin and wish to state clearly from the outset that the government will be opposing this. This is an underhanded move by an opposition that has spent decades trying to undermine superannuation. Their amendment mentions their old, rolled-gold paid parental leave, but it fails to mention that, when they actually had the power and were in government, they axed this idea and then turned to calling mothers 'double-dippers' and 'rorters' and tried to take away their paid parental leave entitlement instead.

What they are proposing now is to encourage parents to cash out paid parental leave superannuation contributions, rather than contribute to their retirement savings, wilfully missing the intent of this bill, which is about closing the gender pay gap in retirement savings and ensuring that the government's paid parental leave is treated like any other workplace entitlement that attracts superannuation. Women deserve to retire with the same financial security as men. Under both alternative options proposed by the coalition, parents are going to be disadvantaged at retirement, thousands of dollars worse off.

But there's also an equity issue, on the point of women being paid, that the coalition have missed in their proposal. Their option for a parent to take an additional two weeks of paid parental leave equates to about $1,830. In comparison, as I've stated, the maximum paid parental leave superannuation contribution will be over $3,000, and obviously this will increase over time. I don't think it was their intention, and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, but, however you look at this, their proposal is a dud for women.

Thanks to Labor's significant investment in paid parental leave, families are already receiving extra support at the time of the birth of their newborn baby, with greater flexibility, a higher income test and more weeks of paid leave. Our reforms have made the scheme stronger and more suitable for the needs of modern families, and through this bill we are not only ensuring families receive extra support at the time of a birth but also boosting their retirement incomes as well. I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be agreed to.

Aaron Violi

Proposed section 10(3) of the bill establishes so-called community benefit principles which a person or body deciding whether Future Made in Australia support should be provided must have regard to. Will the person or body be required to evidence how they have had regard to the principles? If yes, how will this be documented? If no, why not? Further, one of the so-called principles established in subclause (3) is:

(v) demonstrating transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs …

How exactly will the government demonstrate transparency, and how will this be measured? Will applicable metrics be established in the annual report? How will these metrics be decided? Will the minister have to report on the performance of the person or body against the metrics?

Milton Dick

The member for Lyons is not in his seat, first of all. Just to assist the member for Casey: we have moved past the detailed amendment stage, the time for back-and-forth questions. The question before the House is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Whilst there is no standing order preventing a member debating—

Order! We don't need commentary. We have gone through a series of detailed amendments, one by one, through the crossbench and now through the government. We've finished the detailed amendment stage. We just voted on the final stage of detailed amendments from the government. If there are extra detailed amendments, have they been circulated and have they been—

Member for Petrie, I understand where you're coming from. Just so you're clear: with consideration in detail, when the Treasurer is going back and forth and answering questions regarding detailed amendments, that is detailed amendments before the House. We've finished the detailed amendments. I don't think the member for Casey has detailed amendments; he has questions. Those are two different things, detailed amendments and questions. Where we're at in the stage of dealing with the bill is that we've agreed with all of the amendments. So the question now is that this bill as amended be agreed to.

Under the standing orders that can occur. There is no prohibition on that.

Member for Petrie, we're just going to handle this in a systematic way.

Mark Butler

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

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

Julian Leeser

Last night, when I was talking to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, we were interrupted. I was making the point at the time that we were interrupted that the idea of 'Australian made' is a mark of quality. We remember that great campaign with the green triangular logo with the kangaroo on it. We see 'Australian made' as a mark of quality. We know it to be a thing of trust. This bill takes that brand, but it's not a bill we can trust. The government has sought to appropriate the sentiment with branding this policy, but it's really all just spin. In short, the government's so-called Future Made in Australia Bill is an exercise in political pork-barrelling and one which will further drive up the cost of living with more corporate welfare and more handouts.

From the outset, I want to make it clear that Australia is a great manufacturing nation. We've got a proud manufacturing history. We on this side of the House have always and will always support manufacturing, but that's not what we're talking about with this bill. This bill establishes a slush fund because it establishes a pot of taxpayers' money to allow the minister to spend as he wishes. Some will say that this bill is about climate change. Of course, we need to tackle climate change. The coalition has a plan to reduce emissions, but this bill from the Labor Party has nothing to do with that. This is about Labor looking after their mates rather than the environment.

What we have seen with this bill is Labor failing to address the cost of living. As I said last night, this bill is adding more government spending to the economy at a time when orthodox economics indicates that government should be restraining spending, not spending more. We are seeing Labor make bad policy decisions that are making the cost of living even worse. The cost of groceries is up. The cost of electricity is up. The cost of gas is up. The cost of petrol is up. Rents and mortgages are going through the roof, climbing higher and higher. Labor has lost control of its spending, and people in my electorate are paying for it. That is why we are going to oppose this bill. The more we hear about it, the more we know the plan doesn't stack up. This is a plan for pork-barrelling. It is not a plan for a strong economy. This is a plan for more government, not more investment in businesses. It is a plan for more inflation at a time when Labor's spending is already making things worse.

Labor's policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business. The facts are clear: insolvencies are up, productivity is down and businesses are struggling. Economist after economist has criticised this policy. When you have someone of the standing of Danielle Wood, the government's own hand-picked head of the Productivity Commission, an economist of great standing, be so critical of this bill—and I will come back to Danielle Wood in a moment—it should be a red light and a red flag that this bill shouldn't proceed. This is a slogan in search of a policy. It is really about the Prime Minister trying to pick winners. It is not about orthodox economic policy, and, in the end, Australian families will lose out.

Australia is at the back end of the pack when it comes to fighting inflation compared to so many of the countries across the G10. We are in an entrenched GDP-per-capita recession, with anaemic economic growth, which means household are going backwards. I mentioned insolvencies before. Around 19,000 business have entered insolvencies since Labor came to office. That's the highest on record since ASIC began collecting that data. Behind each of those insolvencies is the story of a family, the story of somebody who has tried to have a go and put everything on the line and yet had their business go bust. Why has it gone bust? In part, it's because of the economic conditions that have been in place due to Labor. Since Labor came into power, prices are up by 10 per cent for households. Personal income tax rates are up by 20 per cent. Real wages for employees have collapsed by nine per cent. Living standards have collapsed by eight per cent. Household savings are down 10 per cent. A family with a typical mortgage of $750,000 is $35,000 worse off. This bill does nothing to help households that are struggling. It does nothing to take pressure off families and small business. In fact, as I have said before, the big-spending agenda here is likely to make inflation much worse.

At the centre of the bill is the establishment of a fund for the government to pick winners. It's economics 101. We know it's been tried in the past and we know that, when governments pick winners, it never works. You are much better off leaving these matters of where investment should go to the market. It is not just the coalition saying this; it's distinguished economists. I mentioned Danielle Wood, the Productivity Commission chair. Let's remind the House what she had to say about this. She said:

If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses.

We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.

She said:

… your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap.

When Ms Wood was asked whether the Future Made in Australia Bill was some sort of tax reform, she said, 'No, it is not tax reform.' What she said was that alternative policies, including lowering the corporate tax rate, 'would make us more internationally competitive', and she is right. They are the sorts of policy ideas that we should be pursuing if we want to have a competitive manufacturing industry in this country.

Danielle Wood is not alone. It seems like a whole range of former heads of the Productivity Commission, a very respected body in this country, have come forward and said that this bill puts Australia on the wrong track in terms of increasing productivity. Gary Banks, a former chair of the Productivity Commission, described the Future Made in Australia policy as a 'fool's errand' that risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. Instead, he said:

Seeking to obtain benefits to society through subsidies for particular firms or industries, including in the form of tax concessions, has proven a fool's errand, particularly where the competitive fundamentals are lacking.

I love this particular quote from Mr Banks, who described the scheme as equivalent to Hotel California, saying many will enter the program but few will ever leave. If we're going to talk about the Eagles, the government is saying, 'Take it easy.' We shouldn't be taking it easy in relation to this bill; we should be opposing this bill.

When the Prime Minister criticised Mr Banks, Richard Holden, another distinguished economist, said:

The PM says all the wrong things … And his main argument for subsidies is that other countries are doing it. Like a primary school kid telling a teacher: 'but he started it!'

We've got Danielle Wood, Gary Banks, Richard Holden and Steve Hamilton, an independent economist who said: 'There are many problems with industry policy, and that is a big one. It's why I tend to favour more neutral investment incentives like a lower corporate tax rate or accelerated depreciation. I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back.' This is like Marty McFly—we're back to the future, and it's not a good future. We've tried this in the past—it never works. The government shouldn't be trying it again.

So how does the government's approach differ from what the coalition would do? The coalition's plan for the economy and the future of manufacturing in Australia won't be based on corporate handouts. You won't see policy from us based on political favouritism, and you won't see coalition policy based on a minister setting himself up with a bucket of taxpayer money to use how he likes.

First, we will rein in spending to take the pressure off inflation. We won't spend billions on corporate welfare for pet projects.

Second, we'll wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses going ahead. We'll condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing jobs in so many areas, particularly in the mining and resources sector, in the same way that it's killing entrepreneurialism.

Third, we'll remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda. That's what I said last night: if we are serious about productivity, we must be serious about creating a more flexible workplace, because that's how you encourage businesses to take a chance to take on people and give them a job and encourage them to expand. We will revert to the coalition's former, simple definition of a casual worker and create certainty for 2.5 million small businesses. We know it's not in Labor's DNA to support small business or any other business that isn't under control of their union mates.

Fourth, we'll provide lower, simpler, fairer taxes for all, because Australians should keep more of what they earn.

Fifth, we will deliver a competition policy which gives consumers and small businesses a fair go—not lobbyists and big corporations.

Sixth, we'll ensure Australians have more affordable and reliable energy.

Our economic plan—unlike Labor's economic plan, which is based on failed policies of the past—is based on tried, tested principles which will restore competitiveness and economic confidence. The policies we seek to implement aren't just about the next electoral cycle; they are about the foundations for the next generation for Australia. That's why today I am pleased to rise to oppose this high-spending bill and to oppose corporate welfare for certain manufacturing interests. That is not in Australia's best interests.

(Quorum formed)

Long debate text truncated.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith—That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether in misquoting the Director-General of ASIO while answering a question without notice from the Leader of the Opposition on 15 August 2024, the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the House, such as would constitute a contempt of the House.

Mr Speaker, I am disappointed and, I must say, somewhat surprised at the decision that you have just announced, and it leaves me with no alternative but to take the step I now take. I note that just last week when a Labor member of parliament raised an issue of privilege you did agree to refer it to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. It is very important that there be scrupulous impartiality in the way that these matters are dealt with, but, in view of the decision you have taken, there is no alternative but for me to move this suspension.

I note, for the information of the House, that there is a precedent for the House agreeing to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee in circumstances where the Speaker has declined to grant precedence. On 21 May 2012 this House agreed to refer the case of the then member for Dobell to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, over his deliberate misleading of the House.

Therefore, the step that I am now taking puts the House in the position to take a decision, should it choose, to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In view of the gravity of what occurred on 15 August in question time, I submit that it is entirely appropriate that the House should make that decision, and it's certainly appropriate that standing orders should be suspended so that the House can consider this matter and so that a motion to refer could be put and voted on, because, I say to this House, this issue is a very important one for the operation of this House and for the question of whether the Australian people can trust this Prime Minister and take what he says at face value. It's deeply unfortunate that it's necessary to move this suspension. It's deeply unfortunate that it was necessary to raise this as a matter of privilege. But it should surely be the case that the Australian people can expect that, when the Prime Minister says something in this chamber, they can have confidence that it is both truthful and accurate.

Of course, mistakes do occur on the fly in the heated and fast-moving environment in which we operate. But, where a mistake has been made, it has been the long-accepted practice of this House that a minister, including a prime minister, who has made a statement which in all the circumstances is misleading will come into this House at the earliest possible opportunity to correct the record. Since the opposition has raised this matter, the Prime Minister, by contrast, has taken every possible opportunity to avoid doing what he would rightly be expected to do.

Let me remind the House of what happened. The Prime Minister, in the course of question time on 15 August 2024, stated that the director-general of ASIO had said in an interview on I__nsiders on 11 August 2024:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

But, in fact, what Mr Burgess actually said was:

If they've been issued a visa they've gone through the process. Part of the process is where criteria are hit they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

The Prime Minister left out the crucial words from what the director-general of ASIO actually said. The director-general of ASIO actually used the words 'where criteria are hit'. The Prime Minister deliberately omitted the words so that it would appear that what Mr Burgess was saying was that everyone who gets a visa has had a security assessment by ASIO, but that is not true. It is a matter of public record that not everyone who has received a visa to travel from the Gaza war zone to Australia has had a security assessment by ASIO. The Prime Minister's deliberate misquoting gave a false impression to anyone listening to him in the House or on the official broadcast of proceedings.

Since the Prime Minister made the statement containing this misleading quote, this inaccurate quote, this quote that omitted the critical words and, as a result, what he said to the House was a fundamental mischaracterisation of what Mr Burgess had in fact said and was a characterisation which gave the opposite impression of what Mr Burgess had actually said, the opposition have repeatedly called on the Prime Minister to do two simple things: to correct the record and to provide an explanation as to the government's handling of the security assessment process that is applied when individuals have sought visas to come to Australia from the Gaza war zone. We have moved motions to deal with this matter and, in each case, the government has simply adjourned the debate before allowing it to come to a vote. On each occasion the Prime Minister has declined to appear in this chamber and explain to this chamber what happened and to do as he ought to do. As is the convention in this place when you've said something that is wrong, inaccurate or incorrect, you come in and correct the record. Any prime minister of integrity or of good character would do that. On this side of the House we recognise that errors get made. We recognise things that get said in the heat of the moment. But the fact that this Prime Minister has consistently over a number of sitting days refused to come into this place and correct the record is powerful evidence that this was intentional from the outset. This was a deliberate misleading of the House.

That is why this matter urgently needs to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. The Prime Minister on Monday tabled a transcript as presumably an attempt to get through this issue without having to do what is required in the circumstances, without having to admit that in fact he misled the House. He tabled a transcript of Mr Burgess on Insiders and that transcript does contain the phrase which he deliberately omitted when he spoke in this place—'part of that visa process is where criteria are hit'. That is included in the transcript that the Prime Minister tabled on Monday, and yet the quote that he used on the previous Thursday deliberately omitted those words with the consequence that the opposite impression was given to those listening in this chamber or on the broadcast as to whether it is the automatic process that whenever an application is made there is a security assessment by ASIO. In fact, it is clear from the full and accurate quote that that is not what happens, but we know that it suits the Prime Minister's political interests to give the impression that that is what happens. That is why he engaged in this deliberate misquoting.

The committee of privileges has significant powers. It can call for documents from individuals connected to the matter. It is, we submit, an entirely appropriate circumstance in which those powers should be used. I conclude by reading a quote:

If successful I am determined to restore a greater sense of responsibility to the Office of Prime Minister.

A deeper respect for the Australian people and for the integrity of our democracy.

Real accountability—and delivery.

That soaring rhetoric came from the now Prime Minister when he delivered remarks on 4 March 2022 at the Lowy Institute. We are asking that the Prime Minister live up to the accepted standards of this place and to his own soaring rhetoric. That is why this matter is urgent.

Maria Vamvakinou

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Kevin Hogan

I do second the motion and reiterate the importance of this motion and what the Manager of Opposition Business has said about what is really now a debacle. For Hansard and for people listening, I'm going to go through the quote that was said by the ASIO chief, Mr Burgess, and again say what the Prime Minister said when, we believe, he misled this House. The direct quote on 11 August on Insiders was:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process. Part of that visa process is, where criteria are hit—

I've got that circled; you'll know the importance of that in a moment—

they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

The Prime Minister said Mr Burgess said in his interview:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

You could give him some credit if the bit about where it says where the criteria was hit was at the start or at the end. You could say, 'Well, okay; he didn't misquote.' But he's taken a quote, kept the start of the quote and the end of the quote and left out nine words that completely change the essence of what Mr Burgess said. This is why this is such an important issue and why the Manager of Opposition Business has moved this.

Let's take the Prime Minister, be generous and say that he was unaware of that, that it was an honest mistake. It was very easily resolved, and we would have moved on a long time ago and not be doing this motion now. If he'd come in and said, 'I'll correct the record. This was the record. I said this. This was the full quote,' and read out in parliament what had actually occurred that was different from what he said, we all would have moved on. But again, this Prime Minister can't do that. He can't come in and say, 'Yes, I made'—he could say it was an honest mistake. We'd accept that if that's what he believed it was. But he can't even say that, and that's why this is so important.

Obviously, he should have corrected the record and come to explain that to the chamber as soon as that was called out. We'd also obviously want an explanation on the government's handling of security arrangements for visas for individuals from the Gaza war. In fact, every time we've done something in the chamber—we've moved motions, we're doing this now and there are three or four other things that have happened in this chamber—the Prime Minister has never come in to defend himself on this. He's never come in and said, 'Well, I see what you're saying,' and tried to correct that.'

I'm certainly aware of the seriousness of this, but we believe that only the powerful Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests has the power to truly hold the Prime Minister accountable for this. I think it's unfortunate that I feel this way and feel the need to say this, but this is a bit of a pattern with the Prime Minister. He says Makarrata to one crowd means this, to another crowd he says that. He says one thing to the Muslim community and another thing to the Jewish community. Now we've got him taking a quote from Mr Burgess from ASIO and. Because of where it is in the quote, it looks really deliberate, like he was deliberately misquoting him to change the essence of what he actually said.

Now, you might say, 'Well, why are you making a big deal of this? So what?' but let's look at what the thing behind this is. What's behind this? We all saw the horrific things that happened on October 7. The people that did those horrific acts—not only were they horrific; they actually felt it was okay to film them. They actually filmed themselves doing barbaric acts and thought it was okay to film themselves and celebrate those horrible things. And there are obviously people within Gaza who don't support that and don't like that, and Hamas, the terrorist organisation, hides behind them in tunnels and in schools and hospitals. We don't want those people coming here. The Prime Minister should correct the record. He should say that he misquoted the security checks that were happening.

Tony Burke

I won't delay the House for long. You can tell from the speakers we just heard when their heart is in an issue, and you know when they think, 'Okay, we have to move this.' Can I just say you don't have to move a motion like this. For the entire time we were in opposition, when we made privileges references, if they were given precedence by the Speaker—who obviously was never a Speaker from our party during our time in opposition—we accepted the call of the Speaker. If they weren't given precedence, we viewed that as unfortunate, but we'd had our go. If they were given precedence, then you would have immediately moved the resolution. That was the respect that we had for the office of Speaker when we were in opposition.

I might add that at least they are consistent in opposition with how they were in government! There was an occasion when Speaker Smith gave precedence to a reference—from memory—about Christian Porter, notwithstanding that he'd given precedence, and the motion was moved. The government of the day, including the members who just spoke, voted against their own Speaker and the whole process in terms—

Opposition Members

Opposition members interjecting—

Long debate text truncated.

Allegra Spender

I move the amendment on the sheet further revised on 20 August 2024, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (after line 14), after subsection 323B(3), insert:

(3A) If the Minister determines a scheme under subsection (1), the scheme must provide that a person is not eligible to be a candidate for an election, or to be elected or appointed (including re-elected or reappointed), to an office in an organisation unless the person is a fit and proper person to be an officer.

(3B) Subsection (3A) does not limit subsection (1) or (3).

The CFMEU has forfeited the right to clean itself up. As I've already said today, I'm convinced that the administrator is the appropriate short-term response to purge this union of unscrupulous actors and misconduct. Under the process, the administrator will be granted powers to declare offices within the union vacant. But, as we've seen time and time again, these actors find a way of getting back into this union. That is why I'm moving an amendment that provides an extra layer of security on any appointments made by the independent administrator. Under this amendment, appointments of offices well first require the demonstration of 'fit and proper purpose and status', as defined already within section 255 of the existing Fair Work Registered (Organisations) Act.

I acknowledge that the government has listened to my concerns and has moved an amendment that is of some similar substance. The amendment agreed to in the Senate would prevent those already removed from office by the administrator would be ineligible for office indefinitely unless they can demonstrate fit and proper status. I agree with this, but I believe it goes only halfway. We know that we've had serious issues in relation to members appointed to this union, and I want to see assurances from the get-go that people ascending to offices within this union meet the public's expectation of integrity. I believe this is a sensible solution and urge all members of the parliament to support it.

This administration a start: however—and I've said this before to the minister representing the minister—it is not enough in itself. It has to be the start of where we need to go on this. I believe this is still something that is useful to add to further assurances, particularly from a community that doesn't have a lot of confidence, I'll be honest, in the union or, necessarily, in the government's ability or true will to clean up this union. I believe that this will be a useful amendment for the government to accept.

Tony Burke

To respond on behalf of the government, there's nothing in terms of the concept of the amendment that the government disagrees with. We're in the unusual situation that, normally, we have this debate before the Senate, in which case we would have been in a different situation, I suspect. But an amendment which has the same impact as what's being moved has been carried in the Senate. Therefore, the government won't be supporting the amendment, but acknowledges that the member for Wentworth is raising an issue that does improve the legislation. We believe that the effect of that has already been given by amendments that were carried in the other place.

Anne Webster

In our history on this side of the House of strong leadership on this vital issue, the coalition re-established the ABCC in 2016 after a double dissolution election. Labor shut the ABCC down in February 2023, leaving our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses at the CFMEU's mercy. In tandem with the Registered Organisation Commission, the coalition had established watchdogs to prevent, bullying, thuggery and intimidation from unions like the CFMEU on worksites, but Labor has abolished them both. The coalition gave teeth to the watchdogs, but Labor have proven once again that they are lapdogs to militant unions like the CFMEU.

On Monday, we saw the coalition stepping up to the plate to restore law and order in the construction sector, with the Leader of the Opposition introducing two bills—the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 to restore the ABCC, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024.

Since 2003 the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions, have been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and have been penalised by over $24 million by the courts. Yet it was that same union that, under radical industrial relations changes that were rammed through this place with the support of the Greens, Labor were willing to allow virtually unfettered rights of entry for the CFMEU into family owned small businesses and even farmhouses.

The CFMEU has gained legitimacy within the Australian Labor Party. They influence votes within preselections, so there are members of the Labor Party in here who rely on CFMEU delegates at their conferences and preselections, and that's why they're remaining silent. Some Labor MPs know firsthand what is happening within the CFMEU. They fully understand and so does the minister.

As the Nine Network's investigations have demonstrated, in my home state of Victoria the CFMEU has its claws deep into the Allan government. I note that a union official on major Victorian government construction sites and a senior Bandidos bikie gang enforcer has been charged with serious assault and is on trial for a home invasion where a woman was attacked. Yet the Fair Work Commission decided on 23 June that this person was a fit and proper person to have a right of entry on worksites.

The Greens political party are sheepish, too, because they have been very significant beneficiaries of the largesse dished out by John Setka and his friends. Indeed, as the minister pointed out this morning, the Greens refused to support a bipartisan Senate motion on Monday to rule out taking donations from the CFMEU. Little wonder the Greens are squealing like stuck pigs and opposing this legislation.

The old saying goes, 'Better late than never.' As Labor have been humiliated into acting against the CFMEU with this bill, the coalition has secured sensible amendments to ensure that we do not see a return of the same lawlessness when the public spotlight shifts away. The CFMEU will be put into administration for at least three years and as many as five years, due to the position we held from the outset that criminality, bullying, thuggery and intimidation within the CFMEU would take a long time to sort out.

The administrator will report to parliament every six months, and I hope the press gallery will be paying attention every time. The administrator has also undertaken to ensure that the CFMEU will not engage in party politics during the administration, including making donations, having positions at party conferences or promoting candidates. We on the coalition side have also secured powers to ban the CFMEU officials for life—not five years, as Labor had proposed—better ensuring John Setka is held accountable for his actions.

At this point in time, new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Murray Watt—fresh from his stint as agriculture minister, uniting the farming sector against Labor—says he's concerned about the APRA review, saying, 'We are not supportive of that debate being opened up.' This is a rabbit hole of monumental proportions. (Time expired.)

Zali Steggall

I rise in this consideration in detail stage to, in particular, support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. It is an important one to recognise that any members appointed by the administrator need to be meet a fit-and-proper-character test. I think that it is incredibly important in the circumstances of why we are here with legislation. The allegations of criminality of the CFMEU in recent times have been deeply troubling and have been going on for quite some time. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or CFMEU, is one of the biggest and most influential unions in Australia, but, when this union is in the news, it is far too often for the wrong reasons. Allegations of intimidation tactics, shutting down work at multiple infrastructure projects, bullying, harassment, intimidation, even leading figures within the union being accused of domestic violence and now these current allegations in relation to organised crime links—these are all particularly troubling. There are now also allegations of outlaw motorcycle gang members acting as delegates and being involved in government funded projects, including the $100 billion Big Build Victorian infrastructure plan. These are all incredibly concerning. The alleged criminality is almost certainly ensuring costs escalate on projects. That is particularly concerning in this environment of high inflation.

The consequences are very real: a less-productive economy, slower construction time and cost blowouts. Since 1982, no fewer than four royal commissions have investigated at least some part of the construction sector, so this bill is the start of a process to clean up a union that for far too long has operated effectively without accountability. It means the CFMEU will be forced to accept an administrator. The administration period can last up to five years and will need the recommendation of the administrator to end it. It is definitely the time to act, and I certainly welcome the action of the government. It's a good first step, but we do need to replace the ABCC.

Whilst that body didn't work as intended, it is clear there must be some sort of monitoring body for the building and construction sector. There needs to be some version of an oversight committee, and industry reps are putting forward investigations. It will need to have clear parameters and investigative powers, including criminal prosecution. It remains to be seen how effective administration will be, so we must remain vigilant. It remains to be seen if the administration process will be enough to clean the house and clear out all those elements of the CFMEU after a pretty diabolical history. I note that I had discussions with the minister about an amendment to improve this legislation as the bill commenced in the other place. It was handed to Senator Pocock and successfully adopted, so I thank the government and Senator Pocock for considering that aspect, which was that the minister must follow the administrator's advice about whether to place the union into or out of administration. It does ensure some protection from the decisions being overly politicised; they will instead be on the advice of the administrator.

I support this bill and I support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. I think this is very important. I thank the government for their positive engagement, but I do urge the government to do more, especially in considering what oversight body will need to be put in place to ensure the criminality that we've seen in this sector can never happen again.

Long debate text truncated.

Andrew Wallace

Before I go back to my comments on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, I would like to extend my best wishes to the member for Gorton: 26 years of service in this place—eight terms—is a tremendous opportunity and service to his country. I wish him well, and I look forward to working with him on the defence subcommittee for the life of this parliament.

But to get back to the bill: I'm very pleased the member for Watson is still here—and I wish the Prime Minister and Senator Watt were still here, because they'd be able to listen to my remarks. Until the Labor Party won government in 2022, the member for Watson was the shadow minister for industrial relations for I think virtually the whole time I've been in this place. He then served as the minister for industrial relations. So, when he came out and expressed some form of incredulity—that he had no idea about the recidivism and the criminal conduct that had taken over the CFMEU: 'We had no idea it was this bad'—the member for Watson, as the shadow minister and as the minister for industrial relations, no doubt had read judgement after judgement after judgement of the Federal Court. If he didn't read them personally, I've got no doubt that he would have had many advisers who would have briefed him on those judgements.

Over two decades, judges of the Federal Court have been talking about the illegal conduct that has infiltrated the CFMEU. So I ask this question: how could it be that senior members—any members—of the Labor Party could have had no idea about this problem? Of course they knew! They just chose to turn a blind eye. And why did they choose to turn a blind eye? Well, the fact that the Labor Party has received donations in the order of $6.2 million since the current Prime Minister has been the leader of the Labor Party might have something to do with it.

Luke Gosling

How dare you!

Andrew Wallace

I'll take that interjection from the member for Solomon. As I said earlier, in another speech, I've spoken about this very thing 65 times in eight years. I've watched the now Leader of the Opposition talk about the criminal element he was exposed to at the CFMEU and the lawlessness in the CFMEU when he was the home affairs minister. Yet those members opposite pretend it never happened.

If you don't believe me and if you don't believe the Leader of the Opposition, let's just have a look at some of the cases that have been handed down in relation to the CFMEU. Now, I know the member for Watson was an ardent critic of the ABCC. The Labor Party, when they were last in government, got rid of the ABCC. And when they came back into government again in 2022 they got rid of it again, after we'd put it back in place. To sit here during the MPI and listen to the members of the government defend the actions of the CFMEU—it just beggars belief. I mean, if they want to defend the actions of the CFMEU, why are we having this administration bill? They've learnt nothing, because we know that, to their very core, Labor will always support the CFMEU.

Getting back to the ABCC: I know the member for Watson has been very critical. And the member for Watson should know—full disclosure—that I went to school with the previous commissioner of the ABCC, Stephen McBurney. Stephen McBurney is quoted as saying that the CFMEU made up $15.8 million, or 90 per cent, of the total penalties that were handed down by the ABCC. The Fair Work Ombudsman said on Thursday that since December 2022 it had secured additional penalties of more than $3½ million in cases picked up from the ABCC, the large majority of which were against the CFMEU or its officials.

We've heard and heard and heard and heard, over the eight years I've been in this place, the member for Watson and all those members opposite talking about how ineffectual the ABCC was and how it was picking up people for wearing stickers on their helmets or flying flags. That doesn't equate with the facts. The Federal Court has handed down $15.8 million in fines to the CFMEU and its officials. Are those members opposite kidding themselves, thinking that the Federal Court fined CFMEU officials and the CFMEU $15.8 million because they wore stickers on their helmets or because they flew flags? No. What we have seen, as a result of the expose of Nine, is just a sliver of the criminal conduct that is occurring on building sites in every state and territory of this country.

When John Howard became Prime Minister, he abolished the concept of 'no ticket, no start'. He believed in the importance of freedom of association and enshrined that in legislation, yet that is a constant breach that CFMEU officials continue to make. And then, of course, there's the third line forcing. There's the practice of bullying—not just giving someone a bit of a hard time but getting in people's faces and abusing them with the worst vile language.

Those members opposite talk about the importance of a respectful workplace. When we were in government, those members opposite drove a campaign against the Morrison government about having a problem with women and ensuring a safe workplace; all the while, men and women of this country are turning up onto building sites and are being abused—the worst kind of vile abuse in people's faces, with shocking language being used. People are being forced off sites. Mum and dad businesses are being locked out, not just of a particular site but of all sites that are controlled by the CFMEU. It's that sort of illegal conduct that has been identified in this recent expose. It's that sort of conduct that the courts have been talking about for two decades, and yet still those members opposite had no idea, apparently. It came as a shock.

And the Greens come in here today and talk about their support for the CFMEU. So, whilst the Labor Party has finally been dragged to this position of bringing in this administration bill, the first iteration of which was fundamentally flawed—and kudos to Senator Cash for standing her ground and forcing not one, not five, not 10, not 15 but 20 sensible amendments to that bill—the Greens come in here today still supporting the CFMEU. After everything that we have talked about, all of the bullying and harassment and illegal conduct, they still come in here.

We know that the Labor Party has received $6.2 million, since the Prime Minister became the Leader of the Labor Party, in donations from the CFMEU. How much have the Greens received?

Adam Bandt

Zero—$175,000 to the Liberals. You received more than us.

Andrew Wallace

I have not received a cent from the CFMEU. I can tell you that much. (Time expired)

Tony Burke

I think we've now reached the peak of debate. I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

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

Peter Dutton

I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

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