Milton Dick

The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

Keith Pitt

'The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.' So said George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. That was written in 1949, in post World War II Britain, about a dystopian future in 1984. This might be a surprise: I was around in 1984, and it didn't happen then.

Who, in this place and in this country, would have thought that part of that dystopian work of fiction—the 'Ministry of Truth'—would be implemented by the Albanese Labor government? The idea, even the concept, that a public servant in a department would determine what a fact is and whether someone can have an opinion or a reasonable belief is a yawning chasm. It is incredibly dangerous to this country. I, for one, cannot believe this is being put forward; I really can't.

This nation—in fact, Western democracies, for centuries—has been built on freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It also has centuries of law to protect individuals, to ensure they can't be vilified. The better approach would be to find a way for those centuries of law, those centuries of precedent, those centuries of other cases to be utilised in what is now a normal platform, a digital platform. I think that would be completely understandable.

But one must ask the question as to why the urgency for this bill now? In what is clearly the last days of the Albanese government, as they come towards the end of this term, why the urgency to put this bill through? Well, if you look at some of the components, things that could be considered to 'cause serious harm', the material that might be captured in those elements, include, would you believe, misinformation in elections.

If the Labor Party were so concerned about misinformation in elections, perhaps they might have taken action against their own party in Queensland. I want to give some examples as to where this applies. In the last Queensland election we saw what I found to be an absolutely disgraceful campaign around abortion. This is something so sensitive, so personal, and yet we saw the Labor member for Bundaberg utilise campaign slogans which were, firstly, completely untrue; secondly, false; and, thirdly, absolutely disturbing for many of the female voters. The ALP would use lines like, 'Don't let the LNP jail women for having an abortion.' There is no need to implement legislation like this to stop that behaviour. The Labor Party could have done it.

Graham Perrett

It's in the US now!

Keith Pitt

I hear the interjection, but this is not the United States. This is Australia. It was completely unnecessary; it shouldn't have been done and you don't need legislation like this to prevent it.

But it's not just around what can be utilised in election time. Let's look at things like banks. With this legislation in place, could we have got the banking royal commission, which found so many offences, so many things that needed to be addressed? If the individuals that fought for the banking royal commission had been silenced, as they could be under this legislation, we would never have gotten to the point where those things were addressed, where banks were found to have done absolutely unlawful activities before they got fixed. I come back to the point I made earlier: the oppressed will never know that they've been oppressed if they have nothing to compare it to. Will this end up in the equivalent of digital book-burning, because someone who is not an academic puts forward a view that the government of the day decides is unacceptable and they're removed from digital platforms?

I am 100 per cent supportive of eliminating bullying and fake information from online platforms. The easiest way to do that is to be able to utilise existing laws, and the easiest way to do that is to ensure there are no fake accounts. Your digital, online life is your real life. If you want to make comments, that's fine, but it should be as you, as a verified account. This means everyone knows who it is that makes those comments, that you can be found and prosecuted under existing laws, just as you would if you express those opinions in a newspaper, for example, or you went on to a television station and said something similar.

We also have the issue around referendums. We've just recently been through a referendum. There are those out there who claim that the referendum was defeated because of misinformation. I clearly remember the member for Melbourne having a shot at me on Q+A about some of the advertising that I utilised in the referendum, claiming it was misinformation. It wasn't. It was based on actual legislation that was implemented in the Western Australian state government and applied. That was later withdrawn because it was a mistake, but it was factual. The idea that any government would be able to determine what your reasonable belief is, and prevent you from having it, is an incredibly slippery and dangerous slope.

And then we find in the legislation that there's the ability for the minister to exempt digital platforms. Well, here's a couple of proposals. For example, would this Labor government exempt a digital platform for the CFMEU, who we know have been found and convicted for criminal offences? This legislation would allow the government of the day to exempt a CFMEU digital platform. This is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation.

I will use one example of the treatment of academics and scientists which is very well-known—the views of Peter Ridd, for which he was removed from his place at university in Queensland. I don't necessarily agree with all of his views but I agree with his absolute right to have them. If I recall one of his elements correctly, Mr Ridd made the point that an entire flood season for a year in Queensland is the equivalent of one tide into the Great Barrier Reef, one wash-through, and that sounds a pretty commonsense approach to me. How would ACMA, which would have information-gathering powers, go about perhaps getting a warrant? At what level will that apply? Looking at advice and comments from experts in the field, I will go to the New South Wales solicitor-general, Michael Sexton, who said about this legislation, 'It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement.'

I will come back to the referendum. The Australian people informed themselves and made a decision and that decision should be respected because it was the majority belief of the people who were able to vote in this country and that is what our democratic system is about. Of course we should protect the minorities but all governments of any stripe should govern for the majority of the people and their views, not tell them what their views are, not prevent them from having a reasonable belief, not prevent them from putting forward that view in whatever platform they wish. As I continue to make the point, I am totally accepting that online platforms are part of your actual life but you should be identified, you should have verified accounts, and, whether or not the big Meta operators like that, to be honest, I really don't care.

This is a very dangerous bill. I think the Australian people, once informed, will oppose it. I come to the question that I asked earlier: Why the urgency on this bill? Why now? Why does it need to be put forward? The sceptic in me that has been in place for 11 years says it is all about the next federal election and whether the government of the day can control the message, the thoughts, the reasonable beliefs of the Australian people. I find that unacceptable and I will oppose this bill. I will continue to oppose it, as I have done from the day that the concept was put forward, because it is not in our nation's interest, it is not in the people of Australia's interest that they cannot have their reasonable belief, that they cannot put forward their view and that they cannot have freedom of speech. We should not support this bill in this place or the other place and, if it is successfully passed, we should fight it and, if we win government next year, we should repeal it.

Long debate text truncated.

Amanda Rishworth

RISHWORTH (—) (): On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:

That:

(1) a House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy be appointed to specifically inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia, including:

(a) deployment timeframes;

(b) fuel supply, and transport of fuel;

(c) uranium enrichment capability;

(d) waste management, transport and storage;

(e) water use and impacts on other water uses;

(f) relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;

(g) Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;

(h) risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;

(i) potential share of total energy system mix;

(j) necessary land acquisition;

(k) costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;

(l) the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; and

(m) any other relevant matter.

(2) the committee presents its final report by no later than 30 April 2025;

(3) the committee may choose to table an interim report at any time;

(4) the committee consist of:

(a) seven voting members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and

(b) two supplementary (non-voting) members (one Government, one non-Government) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member);

(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(6) the members of the committee hold office as a House select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(7) the committee elect a:

(a) Government member as its chair; and

(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another Government member to act as chair at that meeting;

(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;

(10) three members of the committee including at least one Government member constitute a quorum of the committee;

(11) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee including at least one government member;

(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and

(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Ted O'Brien

I move, as an amendment to the motion moved on behalf of the Leader of the House:

That paragraphs (1), (4) and (11) be omitted and replaced with the following:

(1) a House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy be appointed to specifically inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors and modern larger plants, in Australia, including:

(a) deployment timeframes;

(b) fuel supply, and transport of fuel;

(c) the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle including value-add opportunities such as fuel fabrication and uranium enrichment capability;

(d) waste management, transport and storage;

(e) cooling options including water, its use and impacts on other water uses;

(f) relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;

(g) Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;

(h) risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;

(i) ability to complement renewables and potential share of total energy system mix;

(j) necessary land acquisition;

(k) costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;

(l) the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability;

(m) the impact on energy affordability;

(n) the impact on energy reliability;

(o) the impact on emissions reduction;

(p) the impact on energy security;

(q) the impact on the environment including geographic footprint;

(r) the impact on regional communities, especially coal communities;

(s) the potential for employment and broader economic impact;

(t) the potential to leverage and expand the uranium sector;

(u) ability to leverage existing nuclear institutions and capabilities including ANSTO, ASNO, ARPANSA and ARWA;

(v) synergy with AUKUS;

(w) potential to replace coal as a source of 24/7 baseload power;

(x) global trends and lessons to be applied in the Australian context;

(y) market design options to facilitate lowest cost electricity supply;

(z) a cost comparison between alternate pathways to achieving a net-zero electricity grid including nuclear energy and the 2024 Integrated System Plan of the Australian Energy Market Operator; and

(aa) any other relevant matter;

(4) the committee consist of:

(a) seven voting members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and

(b) three supplementary(non-voting) members (one Government, one Opposition and one crossbench) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member) ;

(11) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members (including at least one Government and one Opposition member) and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only.

It has taken 2½ years for the Australian Labor Party and the Albanese government to make some form of attempt to engage with the debate on the potential of zero emission nuclear energy in Australia. They do that today, at a time when the Prime Minister happens to be out of the country, which might be convenient because we know he's not very good at handling this debate. It is also noteworthy that the motion being put by the Leader of the House only appeared on the papers here this morning, and therefore the opposition was given only an hour or so to have a read and come into the chamber, which makes one think about why they're doing it. In the midst of such a mess from this government, they sought to pivot yesterday and talk about the NBN. That fell flat, so today they're talking about nuclear energy. Let's see how that goes.

But for now I'm happy to stand here in this chamber and take the Leader of the House at his implied word—because I haven't heard him say this yet—and the implied word is that he is seeking to make a genuine attempt to have nuclear energy genuinely considered by this House. Therefore, the amendments that I put forward today represent a test of the Labor Party, the Albanese government and the Leader of the House. This is a test of whether or not the motion they put forward on nuclear energy is genuine or disingenuous. Is it a matter of them being interested in good public policy, or is this another example of trying to be cunning and playing politics? The test is whether or not they support the amendments that the coalition has put forward.

Let me be very clear about what those amendments do not do before I cover off what they do do. We have today not put forward any amendments which change the words or the substance of what the government wishes to cover within the inquiry undertaken by this new standing committee—that is, we have not deleted any terms of reference. For every term of reference of substance that the government wishes to cover, the opposition stands and says, 'Yes, we come to the party; let us talk about that.' But we have added other things that need to be covered.

Anyone in the energy sector talks about three big priorities: (1) affordability to consumers, (2) reliability of energy and (3) emissions reduction. It's what they refer to as the energy trilemma. Interestingly these terms of reference omit three key aspects: (1) electricity affordability for households and businesses, (2) reliability and (3) emissions reduction. So we offer our gratuitous advice and recommendation by way of amendments today to say let's include those three considerations in a new terms of reference. It's also interesting that Australia already is a nuclear nation, yet the terms of reference put forward by the government do not include the institutional capabilities of nuclear already within Australia today, including ARPANSA, ANSTO and ASNO. They've been ignored. Let us include that in any consideration. Let us also include the AUKUS deal and the synergy of AUKUS because we know nuclear technology in Australia saves lives today by way of ANSTO and we know that nuclear technology has the capacity to protect lives in the future because of AUKUS. So let's have a look at that.

Let's also compare the cost, from a total system cost perspective, of a balanced energy mix to take Australia to a net zero electricity grid, including zero emissions nuclear energy, with that which the government supports, which is the Australian Energy Market Operator's Integrated System Plan. Let's compare those two pathways to net zero. That's vitally important. Let's also look at the importance and the opportunity of ensuring we maintain a source of always-on, 24/7 baseload power in our system—the transition from coal to nuclear. Let's have a look at the impact on the environment beyond emissions and the geographical footprint of those options: the option of having a rollout of an all-eggs-in-one-basket renewables-only grid or a balanced energy mix including zero emissions nuclear energy. Lastly we need to ensure the committee is equally represented by government and opposition members, which is not what they put forward.

Scott Buchholz

Is there a seconder?

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the bill be agreed to.

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.