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.

Bob Katter

In addressing the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, which has been referred to in the media as the 'ghost universities bill', I remind the House, as I said when I was speaking earlier in the day on this matter, that the number of people coming into Australia through the student visas is of the order of 400,000 or 500,000 a year. Now, I find these figures pretty hard to believe—that it's that much—but those are the official figures given to me by the departments. There are another 350,000 people coming in on various visas, including the immigration visa. That's nearly a million people a year coming into Australia.

Over a period of 10 or 12 years, if these people have children, and a lot of them have a lot of children, these people will be a majority in this country. Do they come from countries with democracy? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with rule of law? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with Christianity? No. When I say Christianity, I'm not necessarily referring to belief in a god, but I am referring to the underlying principle of Western democracies—that you have a responsibility to your fellow man and you have a responsibility to make the world a better place. That is the essence of Jesus Christ's message that underpins the Magna Carta which underpins most of our laws and was written by the Archbishop Langton, the head of the Christian church in England at the time.

Let me return to the issue at hand. No Christianity, no industrial awards, no democracy and no rule of law. What the hell do you think our country is going to look like if you bring 10 or 15 million of these people into this country? Go down any time of the day or night to a takeaway food place here in Canberra or a late-night pharmacy or any other thing here in Canberra, and see where those people come from. I've even asked them where they come from.

For those who interpret my remarks as being anti-Muslim, I am on record on numerous occasions praising our neighbours, the people of Indonesia. They've been wonderful neighbours to us, much better neighbours than we've been to them. I've found them marvellous people. I've had a lot of interface with them with live cattle issues and I couldn't speak more highly of them. They strike me as very Christian people! They have respect for other people and they have a desire to make the world peaceful and a better place to live in. I'm not talking about them. But there is a group from the Middle East, and I most certainly make no apologies for talking about them.

Having said those things, one of the most senior people in the universities councils of Australia told me 20 years ago that if you stop the universities from being visa shops, then you will close half the universities in Australia. The government figures are so doctored up they are just a joke. The exports and imports figures are now doctored up with sale of student visas. That is regarded as income for Australia! It's not; it's a round robin. They come here, they stay here, they get a job driving taxis or after hours whatever, and they take the job off an Australian. So you get paid on money they've taken off an Australian that had the job before and was probably working to an arbitrated wage. A lot of these newcomers are not working to an arbitrated wage.

There are numerous examples in history where people have let people into their country. You can start right back with the Vandals being allowed into the Roman Empire and the next thing they were sacking Rome itself. I can give a thousand other examples for those of us who read history books. I quoted Winston Churchill, and it doesn't hurt to quote him again, when he said, 'Those that do not understand and know their history will be doomed to once again to suffer that history.' When Hitler invaded Russia, Churchill chortled and said, 'Mr Hitler does not know his history!' He was dead right. Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia, and the Russians kept running away until he was exhausted and starving, half of his troops dead by disease and trying to chase the Russians down. Then Napoleon did exactly the same thing. He went in there with half a million troops and came out with 50,000 troops. You may even quote Wellington in Spain. If you let the Vandals in, don't complain to me when they sacked and raped and murdered half the population of Rome because they weren't given half of the land ownership of Italy. They felt they should be given land grants over a fair proportion of Italy.

You can start their and go to numerous examples of this. Israel itself is a very good example. It was totally Jewish. Then in 1385, Ibn Khaldun—I think was the name of the historian—said he was very surprised to find that Jerusalem was still predominantly Christian and Palestine was still predominantly Christian. Well, there were no Christians there. Within 200 years, there were no Christians there at all. They let people in. They didn't defend their borders and protect their borders. They let people in, and they were booted out, and they became the Jewish diaspora.

For those people that want an example of what happens, Constantinople was the centre of the Christian religion and the centre of the Roman Empire, and now there is hardly a Christian living in that area of the world. Most certainly, in Constantinople you won't find any Christians. Well, you let the people in. You let them in continuously. You did not defend and protect your borders, and then you paid the price. And the price is very, very high indeed.

We have pretty close to a million people a year coming in on student visas that are supposed to go home. Earlier today, I quoted a case when I got in a taxi and asked the taxi driver a little bit sneakily, 'What subject are you doing at university this year?' He said, 'Hospitality.' I think if I asked the question a different way, he might have been a bit sneaky, but I asked it that way, and he said, 'Hospitality.' He looked to me to be about 50 years old, and he had come in as a very young man to Australia. I mean, quite frankly, if you get in on a student visa, you don't go home.

I also quoted earlier today the case of a family who are lovely people. They're an asset to Australia, in my opinion. But, all the same, I said, 'What visa did you come in on?' She said: 'Oh, I just came in on a student visa. They're really easy to get. Anyone who wants to come to Australia just gets a student visa.' I said, 'What about your family?' She said, 'Oh, they come in on the student visa.' There were six people in that family. These people are great assets to Australia, but a lot of these people are anything but assets to Australia. They sit in a big city ghetto. They don't move. They have no desire, it would appear to me, to become part of Australia now or in the future, and that is not the Australian way.

My brother, who I greatly respect, said: 'They talk about multiculturalism. This country has never been multicultural—never. It was always a monocultural country.' These people have run around with this mouthpiece, and we've all been scared, including me, of it being said that I was against multiculturalism. I never used the word when I was the minister responsible in the state parliament, and I won't use it in the future. We want our people to be Australians, and that is not happening. (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Patrick Gorman - I move: That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick - The question is that the debate be adjourned.

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

Paul Fletcher

I seek leave to move the following motion forthwith:

In noting the agreement of the House to the motion moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs earlier today, the House is of the opinion that recognition must only take place once the following preconditions have been met:

(a) recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;

(b) that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;

(c) reform of the Palestinian authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;

(d) agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and

(e) appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders.

Milton Dick

Is leave granted?

Patrick Gorman

The parliament has dealt with this matter. Leave is not granted.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

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

In noting the agreement of the House to the motion moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs earlier today, the House is of the opinion that recognition must only take place once the following preconditions have been met:

(a) recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;

(b) that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;

(c) reform of the Palestinian authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;

(d) agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and

(e) appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders.

Mr Speaker, the reason that standing orders must be suspended to allow this motion to be dealt with immediately is as a consequence of the motion that was just moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, because it is very important to establish the appropriate conditions that would need to be met before the state of Palestine should be recognised. Now, you may ask why the opposition feels it's necessary to move this now rather than, as an alternative, engaging with the government in a constructive way in relation to a motion that it proposes to move and nominating the conditions that we consider would be necessary before the motion could be supported. If you were to ask that, I would certainly agree that that would have been a sensible process to engage in and the opposition would certainly have been ready to engage in such a negotiation and discussion process on the merits.

Unfortunately, and for reasons which it must be said are, frankly, mystifying, the government did not attempt to engage in any way with the opposition in relation to the terms of the motion that the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs came into this place to move. There was no attempt to engage in advance on the terms of that motion and no attempt to arrive at what would have been a highly desirable state of affairs, where there was agreement reached across as many members of this parliament as possible on a matter which is undoubtedly one that is provoking great anxiety within the Australian community and which has been the source of much contention and ill feeling. It is a great shame that the government did not seek in any way to engage with the opposition on this matter and seek to arrive at a position which could have been mutually supported, and such an outcome would have been highly desirable in terms of maintaining social harmony and cohesion in our nation, which, of course, is one of the world's most successful multicultural, multiracial, multi-ethnic, multireligious nations. That success is something in which we can all take pride, but it is a success that is not achieved without being continually worked at—worked at, it must be said, by both major parties of government. It is, I think, quite regrettable that the government has conducted itself in the way that it has in relation to the motion that has been moved. It has missed an opportunity to arrive at an aligned position. I can't be confident that an aligned position could have, ultimately, been reached. I can't be confident of that, but what I can be confident of is that if the government makes zero attempt on a matter of such sensitivity and such importance to engage with the opposition in relation to whether an aligned position can be arrived at, that is no way to be conducting itself at a time when these issues are of enormous sensitivity within our community. I think this has been a deeply regrettable missed opportunity.

The opposition believes it is very important that this House should have the opportunity to state very clearly what we believe needs to be satisfied in terms of preconditions in advance of any recognition of a Palestinian state occurring. We believe that's important from first principles, and if I can reference the eloquent remarks from the member for Berowra earlier today, we believe that becomes only more important given the reality that this position, which the government is proposing will be taken by Australia internationally, is a position being taken after the appalling terrorist attacks of October 7, which saw some 1,200 innocent men, women and children killed, and some 200 people dragged away as hostages, some of whom, sadly, subsequently have died and others of whom remain imprisoned in the tunnels under the Gaza Strip. It is impossible to be discussing this issue without a recognition of the events which have preceded it. It is, therefore, deeply regrettable that the government made no attempt to engage with the opposition in relation to the basis on which a motion of this nature could—at least potentially—have obtained the support of both of the major parties of government.

I direct the House to the terms of the procedural motion which the government moved, establishing the terms under which the debate on the motion moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs was held, because those terms did not admit of amendments. They did not allow for a process in which this House could have worked towards a form of a motion which—again, at least potentially, as I cannot say with certainty—had the scope for receiving the support of both major parties of government. I won't speak for anybody else in this parliament, but what is clear is that the way the government conducted itself from the outset was evidently done in a way that showed no appetite for reaching agreement between the two major parties of government on this matter—which is, of course, enormously important when it comes to the position that Australia as a nation takes in international forums. It's also enormously important in terms of the leadership which this parliament is able to demonstrate to the broader community at a time when we have seen troubling instances of social disharmony arising out of different perspectives as to what is occurring in the Middle East. It is a time when we have seen—as this parliament has rightly condemned—the appalling spectacle of war memorials being vandalised, showing remarkable, extraordinary disrespect to all of those who have served and sacrificed for our nation over more than 100 years. It's at a time when we have seen events occurring on university campuses which mean, sadly, that Jewish students have indicated that they do not feel safe, and other students have expressed concern that their lectures have been interrupted by political activists seeking to press them to take a particular position on the events in the Middle East. We of course saw the extremely troubling events on the forecourt of the Opera House only a few short days after the 7 October terrorist attack, when we saw people saying terrible things about the Jewish people. We saw a real sense of breakdown in public order and troubling instances of Jewish Australians being advised by the police not to be out in public.

These are enormously important issues; this is urgent, and so therefore I moved the motion which I have just articulated.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Julian Leeser

I second the motion. In fact, I think there has probably not been a more important suspension of standing orders motion that I have spoken on than this one. It is so important that we immediately correct what has gone on in the House with the previous motion. What we have now is a very untidy circumstance, where we have one motion that has been passed in this House that recognises a Palestinian state without conditions, and we have another motion that was passed in the Senate which reflects the work of my friend the Manager of Opposition Business in adding these amendments. I would jealously defend the rights of this House, but we need to think about who is putting this motion together in the Senate.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate is the foreign minister. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is the shadow foreign minister. Together, they worked on this motion and put together a series of conditions which reflect, more or less, a traditional Australian foreign policy position on Israel-Palestine. Without these conditions we're seeing what I spoke about in the previous debate, which is a growing gulf between the government and the opposition in relation to Israel and in relation to the Jewish community. As a Jewish Australian I decry that.

I would like to see a bipartisan position in relation to Israel and Palestine. The position that we on this side of the House have held on these issues has reflected the longstanding tradition of bipartisanship on these issues. Fundamentally, that is that you can't have a Palestinian state without Palestinians recognising Israel's right to exist, and that is the first condition that's in this motion put forward by my friend the Manager of Opposition Business. This motion clarifies that there should be no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state. This motion also acknowledges the realities on the ground; people might like the idea of a Palestinian state, but we have a Palestinian authority in the West Bank that has not had an election for decades. And we know that if an election were held there, Hamas would win that election, so we would have the same issues there. The basic conditions of a stable state are not able to be met, and that's why it's important that we have points in the amendment that relate to the reform of the Palestinian Authority being achieved, including major security and governance reforms. It's important that we have agreed processes to resolve final status issues, including state borders and rights of return; these should be spelled out as a clear condition of Australian foreign policy. And there should be appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security between recognised borders.

This very same motion, the motion put forward by my friend the Manager of Opposition Business, was put forward only last Tuesday in the Senate. It beggars belief that the foreign minister's own assistant minister didn't come to the House, if they wanted to move this motion, and have as the starting point the same motion that was handed out in the Senate. This speaks to me of a motion that was dreamed up on the back of an envelope five minutes before the assistant minister came into the House. I think on an issue of such sensitivity, that is a great shame.

I think that the tensions in the community at this point on these issues are completely unprecedented. The antisemitism that I have seen and, indeed, the failure of people in authority to do anything about antisemitism have created a massive sense of abandonment among Jewish Australians. I have to say that I have been very disappointed this government hasn't taken up the offer of a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campuses. There's also no evidence that this government has provided any directions to the Australian Federal Police to take a tougher line on antisemitism. There was lots of talk about doxxing laws as a result of the doxxing of Jewish artists and creatives. We've seen nothing on that. There has been lots of talk from this government about an envoy on antisemitism. Again, months have passed, and we've seen nothing. There's been talk about strengthening laws, and, again and again, we've seen nothing. We just get motions and empty words.

I think the motion that was just passed, without these clear conditions, undermines social cohesion in this country. It undermines an attempt to get bipartisanship on this issue, and that's why I say to those opposite that it is actually worthwhile thinking about supporting this motion—if nothing else, to bring the House into line with the Senate, the place where the two principal spokespeople for foreign policy for the government and the opposition sat and hammered out these words only a week ago.

Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Tim Watts - I move: That this House endorses the Government's position to support the recognition of the State of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace.

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

The Australian government makes foreign policy for our nation. The Australian government recognises states. But I move this motion today on behalf of the Australian government because the Greens and others are deliberately misleading the Australian public about the government's position on recognising a Palestinian state. The Albanese government has been clear that we will recognise Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace. We want to see a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. No Australian government has ever expressed such strong support for a Palestinian state. This is reflected in what we tried to put to the Senate last week. We are doing more than just lecturing and condemning people; we are working with countries around the world that want a just and enduring peace in the region.

In the recent vote at the UN General Assembly, 143 countries, including Australia, expressed an aspiration for Palestinian membership of the UN. Australia and a number of other countries, including, Germany, the UK and Canada, have shifted our position so that recognition of a Palestinian state is no longer seen as being the end point of negotiations. To help realise a Palestinian state, we have asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to look at what role Australia can play in supporting reform of the Palestinian Authority so that it can deliver on the needs of the Palestinian people.

The conflict in the Middle East has spanned our entire lifetime. The fact is that the Albanese government is working with the international community to create momentum for a lasting peace in the form of a two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. The foreign minister has been clear in what we want to see in progressing a two-state solution and recognition of a Palestinian state. Firstly, we see no role for Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Secondly, a Palestinian state cannot be in a position to threaten Israel's security. Thirdly, we want to see a reformed Palestinian governing authority that is committed to peace, that disavows violence and is ready to engage in a meaningful political process.

There needs to be serious progress on security and governance reforms and the final status of core issues such as Jerusalem, and the borders of a future Palestinian state should be determined through direct negotiations. But we emphasise that there is no long-term security for Israel unless it is recognised by the countries in its region. The normalisation agenda that was being pursued before October 7 cannot proceed without progress on a Palestinian state. Saudi Arabia has said that there will be no diplomatic relations with Israel unless an independent Palestinian state is recognised. We also know that recognising a Palestinian state undermines Hamas and undermines Iran—and Iran's other destructive proxies in the region. Peacemaking is hard. It requires real leadership by serious people. It requires those of us who are not central players in this conflict to support those who are in the hard work of progressing a two-state solution to this conflict. We know that this is the only way to break the cycle of violence.

I note that some members of the Greens are walking away from a two-state solution. Presumably, that is because some members of the Greens think that there should be no State of Israel, just as some in the opposition think there should be no state of Palestine. We even saw Senator Sharma, who should know better, hosting an event in Parliament House for extremists who are campaigning against a two-state solution. These fringe views in the Greens and the opposition condemn both Palestinians and Jews in the Middle East to endless war and suffering. They also seek to position Australia outside the international community that is building momentum on Palestinian recognition and a two-state solution. Presumably, this is why they joined together to reject Labor's amendment in the Senate recently. What matters in the region is the actions of governments, not political games in parliaments on the other side of the world.

While Australia is not a central player, we have a respected voice and we are using it to advocate for a ceasefire, for the protection of civilians, for increased humanitarian assistance and for the release of hostages. When I travel to the region and speak to representatives of countries that have influence in the region, they are completely oblivious to these political stunts. My counterparts in those countries don't raise Senate motions with me, let alone failed Senate motions. Instead, they welcome the constructive role that the Australian government has been playing since October 7.

Since the start of this conflict, I have used the Australian government's respected voice to make our case in Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. What the people I have met with in these countries care about are the substantive actions of our government. I can tell you that our actions are respected as constructive contributions to minimising the human suffering from this conflict and for promoting a peace process and a two-state solution. We are using our voice in international institutions and forums.

It is more than six months since Australia voted with 152 countries for a ceasefire at the United Nations. In May Australia supported expanded Palestinian rights to participate in UN forums and the General Assembly's aspiration for eventual Palestinian membership of the United Nations, consistent with a two-state solution. We have also joined with our partners to amplify our voice at prime ministerial level alongside Canada and New Zealand in December and February, alongside the UK defence and foreign ministers in March and alongside foreign ministers from the UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and other partners in a letter to Foreign Minister Katz in May, opposing Israel's operation in Rafah. We have pushed for safe, unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access and contributed to the international humanitarian response: committing $72.5 million to address urgent needs arising from the conflict in Gaza and the protracted refugee crisis; delivering ADF aerial delivery parachutes for use in humanitarian assistance airdrops by Jordan and the UAE; supporting the UN humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator's work on aid coordination and deconfliction in Gaza; and we have pressed the Netanyahu government directly, publicly and privately.

The foreign minister has written to her counterpart, including following the shocking and unacceptable strikes in Rafah. Australia's ambassador has made representations to senior Israeli officials on numerous occasions. Our senior officials have made representations to Israel's ambassador in Canberra. We have used our voices in dozens of engagements with foreign counterparts, including those with influence in the region. We have been consistent and clear in our call for international law and international humanitarian law to be upheld, including the protection of civilians.

We've been calling for restraint from the very start. We've been securing the passage of a parliamentary motion calling for the protection of civilian lives and observance of international law in October 2023. We've been clear in our respect and support for the independence of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. We will deny anyone identified as an extremist settler a visa to travel to Australia. This is what Labor governments achieve.

Since coming to office, and well before the current conflict started, the Albanese government has taken steps to support a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace. We have affirmed that settlements are illegal under international law and a significant obstacle to peace. We have adopted the language of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, consistent with the approach taken by key partners. We reversed the Morrison government's decision to recognise West Jerusalem as a capital of Israel, reaffirming Australia's longstanding and bipartisan position that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations.

We doubled the Australian government's core funding to UNRWA, from $10 million to $20 million, and we've called out unilateral actions that undermine the prospects of peace in a two-state solution, including terrorism, violence and incitement, settlement activity, settler violence, demolitions and displacement. We've done that because Labor governs for all Australians. We're a party of progress, not a party of protest. We listen to all Australians and we represent all Australians. We don't talk for some Australians; we don't simply represent some Australians. We represent everyone. We seek to bring Australians together in challenging times, not to divide them in pursuit of short-term political gain.

Our foreign policy begins with our identity, it begins with who we are. Australia is a country where half of us were either born overseas or have a parent born overseas. We're a diverse and pluralist society, a society where necessarily, understandably we will disagree, but we're a society, we're a nation where we will continue get along. We will need to live together, side-by-side, with people who have different views to us in our workplaces, in our sporting clubs, in our schools and in our communities. We need to be able to disagree respectfully and retain our cohesion as a nation. That takes leadership, and that's what this government is providing here, at home and in the region where this conflict is occurring.

In this motion I invite the chamber to join with the government in this effort, to join in providing the leadership that we need for peace building in the Middle East and for social cohesion here at home.

Paul Fletcher

On 7 October, 1,200 innocent men, women and children were murdered at the hands of the murderous terrorist organisation Hamas in Israel. Israel is the only multiparty democracy in the Middle East. It is a longstanding ally and security partner of Australia, and this country has consistently voted with a range of like-minded nations in the United Nations on a range of matters in relation to Israel, recognising the fundamental democratic values that the state of Israel embodies and recognising that it is very important to send a clear message to those who are supporting and encouraging murderous terrorist activities.

What we have seen from the government just now is a motion that has been moved with no notice to the opposition. The assistant minister has scuttled into this place to move this motion without bothering to give any notice to the side of the House, showing contempt for the millions of people who are represented by those of us on this side of the House on a matter of such extraordinary sensitivity in our community, at a time when there is, across our community and across our nation, a significant component of our population that feels unsafe. What we have seen is a conspicuous failure of leadership by this weak Prime Minister and by this weak government, and we have seen that consistent pattern repeated by the assistant minister. If this was something they were proud of, they would have notified the opposition, but they have not bothered to do that. You have to ask, 'What is going on here?'

What is going on here, very clearly, is a government that has abandoned longstanding principles on the basis of short-term political considerations. I say to the government, to every member of this House and to every Australian: if we have just seen a murderous terrorist attack with 1,200 innocent men, women and children killed and some 200 people taken hostage, some of whom are still kept in the tunnels under Gaza, all of us want to see a secure and lasting peace, and the way that peace is to be achieved is in the hands of the murderous terrorist thugs who control Gaza. It is in the hands of the murderous terrorist organisation Hamas. What we have just seen from this government, from this weak Prime Minister, is a decision to reward terrorism and to reward terrorists. That is what we have just seen from this weak government and this weak prime minister.

Milton Dick

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will pause. The Assistant Minister for Financial Services?

Stephen Jones

I ask that the member withdraw.

Milton Dick

There is far too much noise for me to hear what the Manager of Opposition Business was saying, so I am going to ask him to assist the House and withdraw so the debate can continue.

Paul Fletcher

I withdraw. I make the point that when a nation of Australia's standing makes a decision as to what we do globally, it sends a signal, and the signal that this government is sending and the signal that this House of Representatives is being asked to endorse is that we are rewarding terrorism, we are rewarding the lawless, murderous, terrorist organisation Hamas. This is what this government is proposing, and this side of the House believes that should be acknowledged.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! Members on my right, I want this debate to be done respectfully. People are interjecting outside of their seats. If you want to interject, you may return to your seat. Do not interject if you are not in your seat. If you do so, you will not be here for the vote. I give the call to the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth.

Long debate text truncated.

Julian Leeser

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) private Members' business order of the day No. 22 relating to the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 being called on immediately;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill continuing for a period of no longer than one hour, with the time for each speech limited to 10 minutes;

(3) questions then being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(4) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with:

(a) one question to be put on all government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments;

(c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and

(d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to;

(5) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

(6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.

Standing orders must be suspended in order to urgently consider the private member's bill to establish a judicial inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. The Prime Minister must stop his attempts to shut down debate on this issue of antisemitism, as the government has done repeatedly and as recently as this morning, with coalition attempts to condemn the desecration of our sacred war memorials that were daubed with anti-Semitic slogans. This is the third time I have sought to bring on debate on this bill. It's been a week since the last time I sought to have the House consider this bill and almost a month since I first introduced it. That is long enough for the Prime Minister have thought about it and considered it. It's time he acted and allowed debate on this issue.

Semester 2 is now less than a month away. The antisemitism which has been rife on campus for years before 7 October and has only escalated since that time cannot be allowed to continue. Since I first introduced this bill to the House, antisemitism in Australian universities has become worse. Just last week, I met with Jewish university staff and Jewish university students who implored me to continue this fight. Every day, non-Jewish university administrators, academics and even university council members contact me and tell me to keep going with this bill, and we have to keep going. We have Jewish academics leaving the sector. We have Jewish students leaving their courses. These aren't isolated incidents, and they're not without precedent. We know that what happens on campus today affects the culture of Australia tomorrow.

I think one of the worst things we have seen is the University of Sydney's appeasement of the extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. This should ring alarm bells for the Prime Minister, for the defence minister, for the education minister, for the Attorney-General and, indeed, for every member of this House. Australian universities will play a critical role in delivering AUKUS. At a time when we need our best and brightest minds to develop the research capabilities Australia needs for our defence and security alliances, Sydney university has forfeited its right to participate. Sydney university's capitulation to extremist groups is so alarming. The idea that groups linked to Hizb ut-Tahrir will now have a seat at the table, running the ruler over Sydney university's defence contracts, beggars belief.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a group that has been listed as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and in Germany and banned in many Muslim countries. In doing deals like this, Australian universities are risking our security and our international relationships. Sydney university's actions have been condemned by a coalition of Jewish groups, including the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, the Zionist Federation of Australia, the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. In a joint letter to Sydney university, the Jewish group said:

Based on our interactions to date, we have lost confidence in the capacity of the University to provide for the physical, cultural and psycho-social safety of Jewish students and staff members. This is not just our view. We have been made aware that several academic staff, some of them leaders in their fields and employees of long standing, have already notified the University of their decision to leave the institution. We have also been informed that a number of Jewish students are now considering shifting to other Universities.

We have also rejected the University's offer, extended to us after an agreement had been reached behind our backs, to participate in the proposed process to review the University's investment and research activities. The process is in our view a sham and we will have nothing to do with it. We encourage all individuals and groups of standing likewise not to engage with or lend credibility to such a fundamentally flawed process.

We continue to explore all options to ensure the safety and wellbeing of students and staff at the University of Sydney and stand ready to provide support and assistance to Jewish students and staff at the University, as well as those who now wish to leave the University.

The bullying behaviour of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the encampments is all part of a broader movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel—an antisemitic movement that seeks to judge and treat Israel by different standards than any other nation. A movement that had died in Australia that has been given new life by the inaction of vice-chancellors, and now it's spreading to other areas of Australian society because of that inaction.

With council elections only weeks away, Sydney city council and Sydney's lord mayor, Clover Moore, are looking for relevance. Instead of focusing on delivering the services a council is responsible for, the lord mayor has embarked on a foray into foreign policy, with a BDS campaign against Israel. The lord mayor has looked at Sydney university's weakness and capitulation to extremist organisations. She's looked to Canberra and seen the complete lack of leadership coming from this government. Now, empowered, she too can join the antisemitic BDS crusade.

The apathy towards antisemitism in Australia is startling, and it's having a damaging impact right across our country. Last weekend, not far from here, memorials dedicated to honouring the lives and service of Australians at war were vandalised with antisemitic slogans like 'from the river to the sea'. If you fail to address this issue in hotbeds like universities, the consequences in other areas of our society are inevitable. A judicial inquiry is the only way we can get to the bottom of the scourge of antisemitism infecting our universities. It's the only way witnesses will feel safe enough to divulge their experiences, free from retribution. It's the only way that university chancellors and vice-chancellors will be cross-examined and held to account for their failure to act at universities. It's the only way we will receive findings and recommendations to deal with an issue that's been plaguing the sector for years.

Rather than having a standalone judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus, the government's current policy is to have a general antiracism inquiry conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Australia's Jewish community has no confidence in the Australian Human Rights Commission, with antisemitism rife among its staff, and its commissioners turning a blind eye to the antisemitism infecting our country. This House should have no confidence in the Human Rights Commission. An organisation riddled with an apparent disregard for the human rights of Jewish Australians is no place for an inquiry of this kind.

It is interesting to me that the only commissioner of the Human Rights Commission that has made any speech condemning antisemitism since 7 October is Lorraine Finlay, the one commissioner whose appointment was repeatedly attacked by this Attorney-General, while his hand-picked Race Discrimination Commissioner cannot bring himself to admit that 'from the river to the sea' is a violent phrase. Where is the Attorney-General, the minister responsible for the benighted organisation which is the Australian Human Rights Commission? He's said practically nothing about the rampant antisemitism on our campuses or the systemic racism against Jews which exists at the Human Rights Commission.

Enough is enough. Antisemitism on our campuses is out of control, and we are now only weeks away from the resumption of classes for semester two. That's why standing orders need to be suspended so that this House can consider the bill so that all members of this House will have the opportunity to stand with Australia's Jewish community and stand against antisemitism on campus.

We know universities are ground zero for antisemitism and we are now seeing it filter into other aspects of life. We have seen it in the horrific terrorist attacks on the offices of members of parliament, in particular the member for Macnamara's electorate office. We are seeing a situation across the board where MPs and their staff are unsafe in their offices. This is not normal. This is not okay. This complete breakdown of law and order seems to be accepted by some, encouraged as it is even by some members of this House, especially the Australian Greens.

I ask the Prime Minister and all those opposite: What will it take? What else needs to happen for them to be convinced that antisemitism in Australian universities is rife and has the potential for devastating consequences? What will it take to convince them that antisemitism in Australian universities deserves a proper inquiry conducted by an independent jurist rather than the kangaroo court that is the Human Rights Commission? I also ask those opposite: do they want to be the ones regretting not having taken a stand when they could have?

This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show leadership and send a message to Australia's Jewish community that he's actually serious about dealing with antisemitism in the way that the Jewish community has demanded: with a standalone judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus.

Throughout last year, the Prime Minister repeatedly quoted the Jewish sage Hillel when he said the words: 'If not us, then who? If not now, then when?' Let me ask the Prime Minister the same question about the judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus: if not you, then who? If not now, then when?

Sharon Claydon

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wallace

I second the motion. There was a recent university survey done by the Social Research Centre that showed 64 per cent of Australian Jewish university students have experienced antisemitism at university—64 per cent. Over half of all Jewish students, 57 per cent, have hidden their identity at university to avoid antisemitism. Three-quarters, 76 per cent, of Jewish students would be more confident about making complaints if their university adopted a definition of what antisemitism is.

We have seen some of the most grotesque actions by those who would seek to bring the Jewish community down, not just in Australia but across the world. In particular, the ground zero of where we've seen it is at these so-called place of enlightenment. We've seen it at these so-called places of enlightenment not just in Australia but across the world, the Western world.

But let's just concentrate on Australia where we, in this place, can make a difference. The member for Berowra has moved this motion on three occasions, and, on each occasion, the government has effectively gagged this motion. I say that is atrocious. That is appalling. This is an opportunity for the government to show leadership. This is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that it supports the more than 100,000 Jews living in Australia.

I was at a function in Sydney a couple of weekends ago and I met a young gentleman in his early 30s. I didn't know him from a bar of soap. He came up to me, he hugged me and he said his name. He said, 'I just want you to know: thank you for what you're doing in relation to Israel.' He started to tell me about how his grandparents were survivors of the Holocaust. He said, 'I just want you to know this is the first time in my life where, as a Jew, I have felt unsafe in Australia.' He told me, 'I am seriously, seriously considering moving my family to Israel.' This guy was very intelligent. He was telling me that he is thinking about moving to Israel. I had another gentleman, who is a principal of a school, speak to me. Guess what? He has probably already moved now. He was telling me that he and his wife are moving back to Israel because they felt safer living in Israel—in a war zone—than living in Australia.

How could we have got this so wrong? In our universities, the places of so-called enlightenment, people like Mark Scott, vice-chancellor of the University of Sydney, are saying, 'This is a matter of free speech.' How could we have got this so wrong? It reminds me of the Greens saying, 'Well, it's okay to deface our war memorials because that's a matter of free speech.' What is happening to this country?

Last night I spoke about how the far left are now so aggressively hating on the Jewish community and the far right are so aggressively—and have been for many years—hating on the Jewish community. We've got the far left and the far right coming up around the back and meeting. We are losing our way in this country, and we are losing our way because of the lack of leadership in this country. This country needs a leader who will stand up and say: 'Enough is enough. This is unacceptable.' Jews, no matter where they are—whether they're at university, at work, at schools or on the playgrounds—have just as much right to an education and to live life as every other Australian.

Long debate text truncated.