Jason Clare - We condemn the desecration of this sacred Australian site. I move: That this debate be adjourned.

Opposition members: Shame!

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

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

Phillip Thompson

I move:

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

That the House condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protesters which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance.

We must suspend standing orders to bring on this urgent debate. This is a matter of significant importance. It is our responsibility to the community, as a parliament, to debate these serious topics here in this nation's parliament. We must call out and condemn these disgusting acts, this despicable behaviour, and that's why we are calling on this suspension.

Saturday night's attacks were not an exercise of free speech but of criminal behaviour. The Australian National Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam Forces National Memorial, the Australian Army memorial: no cause gets the right to desecrate our most sacred sites. There has been outrage throughout the community. People are rightly upset. And I'm sorry to all of our Defence Force members, our veterans and their families that they had to witness such disgusting, such despicable acts that have occurred not just in the nation's capital, but around this country. No cause gives you the right to desecrate these sites. It does not represent the community's attitude towards our ADF, our veterans or their families.

The freedoms that we enjoy in this nation are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifice that those in uniform, those that have served and their families have made. To turn on the TV or to wake up in the morning and open the paper to see this criminal activity—vandalism, spray-painting, the desecration of the Australian War Memorial and other war memorial sites—is not just a kick in the guts to every veteran; it's a slap in the face to the Australian public, who believe in the rule of law and freedom of speech. This should never occur in this country or anywhere else around the world. And I don't believe it has been condemned enough in this parliament. I don't believe that we have had time to debate this, to call out this behaviour and to say, 'We stand as one, because this behaviour needs to stop.'

The veterans community is rightly angry. From the time the first person would have seen this disgraceful vandalism, my phone, my social media, even my door being knocked on, like many other people in parliament—from veterans who are angry, who are disgusted and who are sad that this has occurred.

Here's what a few veterans have had to say. One said: 'We should be proud of all of our veterans and those who have served. Those who desecrate memorials should be jailed. This does not fall under freedom of speech.' A veteran's son said: 'As the son of a Kapyong veteran, I'm disappointed that people have no respect for the personnel that put on the uniform in our armed service.' Another veteran said: 'It's so sad that these people who have fought, died for our freedom—and this is the thanks that they get. I try not to hate anything, but I do hate the people who desecrate war memorials. This is disgraceful. I do not stand for those who have desecrated these war memorials. People have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and they deserve respect. This makes my blood boil. And, as I come from a proud family of ex-ADF personnel, I want to say thank you to those who have served.' These are just some of the messages that I and others in this parliament have received.

I took a phone call only yesterday where the mother of a veteran was in tears—in tears because the one place that is the most sacred for all that have served has been desecrated. She said to me, 'Stand up. Be counted. Call this out.' That's why this suspension motion to bring on debate must happen—because I do not believe that yesterday's gag on the debate, shutting it down, as we saw, was in the national interest. We want to see both sides of parliament stand up and be given the opportunity to call out this disgraceful attack on our veterans and on the community, and call out the antisemitism that has been on display. We must debate this. We must.

This has hit our veterans community extremely hard, and I think that it's right to say that they expect more from us. We have a responsibility to our communities and the people that we represent. This is the nation's national parliament. We must condemn these disgusting acts, and yesterday's move to gag debate, to shut down the discussion, is abhorrent. To say there was no time—it took 25 minutes from the first mover to when the debate was gagged. You cannot tell me that you have no time to stand up and condemn these disgraceful, despicable acts. And every single speech from a government minister, including the defence minister, should say, 'We stand as one in this parliament,' because that's not the message that the Australian people saw yesterday. It shouldn't be concerning for the government, because this is the same wording in this suspension as Senator Lambie's motion in the other place on Monday.

We want debate to occur because our veterans, this country, want to see us standing as one in condemning the disgrace of the Greens, the disgrace of their commentary of late, saying that desecrating the Australian War Memorial is somehow a part of their free speech, somehow a part of free speech. They are not fit to sit in parliament and they are not fit to co-govern with the Labor Party. They are a disgrace. And because you cannot call them out, because you cannot stand up and debate this with us today, that is why a second suspension has been brought on. I would have thought that yesterday was the time for when the opposition and the government could stand as one and say that the despicable commentary from the Greens, the kick in the guts to all the veterans from their commentary, should be rightly condemned. But we didn't see that. We saw debate be gagged, shut down, not discussed. That is disgraceful, an absolute disgrace.

These individuals, these people in the Greens movement who are justifying this as a form of expression are despicable. They are deeply disrespectful to the memories enshrined in those on the War Memorial. More than 100,000 names are etched on the War Memorial. Some of them are my mates, and I can tell you, every time I hear about the War Memorial being desecrated, vandalised, it makes my blood boil then it makes me so angry when I see people coming into parliament saying, 'This is a part of free speech.' Garbage. It is not a part of free speech. You are a part of the problem. That antisemitic and disgraceful vandalism that we have seen at war memorials needs to be called out because I will tell you who chants, 'from the river to the sea': Hamas, a terrorist group.

To see the Prime Minister come in here and say, 'It is okay because Jewish people as well as people from Palestine both say "from the river to the sea".' That is not what the Jewish community has been telling me and they are rightly angry. This is a debate that needs to come on. We need to have this discussion now. We do not believe it is in the nation's interest to be gagged like we saw yesterday with the motion from the member for Canning. We need harsh penalties. I want to see these scumbags, these criminals who are doing this desecration in handcuffs. I want to see them off the street and put in jail. This is not good enough. Bring on debate.

Ian Goodenough

Is the motion seconded?

Keith Wolahan

I second the motion. We have patriots on all sides of this chamber—

An honourable member: Correct

We certainly do, and we have patriots who have served in uniform on all sides of this chamber. We have heard, again and again, calls from both sides to lean in to bring in our nation together because we can all agree it has never been more divided than it is now. Here is an opportunity to lean in and focus on the thing that unites us more than any other—our war memorials—because when you go to the war memorials you will notice a list of names. There is no rank. There is no race. There is no religion. There is no party-political identification. They don't even have honours and medals because the purity of their name and who they were as humans matters, and on that War Memorial are many thousands of people who were not born in this country. On that War Memorial are Christians and Jews and Muslims and, but for the bravery of people of every faith, there would be many more. I know, as the member for Canning and the member for Herbert know, we saw firsthand the bravery of people of Islamic faith who fought side-by-side with us, and many of us would have been added to that War Memorial but for their bravery.

So this motion, which you have notice of, is about focusing in on what unites our nation, not what divides us, because this is about acknowledging the people who said, 'This is not just a piece of dirt surrounded by water; it is a nation that stands for something. It is a nation with fighting for.' We acknowledge the service, sacrifice and unbearable grief of the families who had to walk into bedrooms and know that their sons had given up all their tomorrows for our today.

Humans aren't very good at comprehending large numbers. Imagine what 103,000 young men looks like. Go to the MCG. Stand there and know that, in one morning, 640 from Gallipoli took a seat. In 24 hours, fewer than 2,000—1,917—from Fromelles took a seat. Those were the deadliest 24 hours in Australian history. That's half of the Ponsford Stand. Seven-thousand seats were filled from the Somme, the other half filled from Pozieres. Those who died at Bullecourt are 2,000. Over 2½ months, Passchendaele saw 12,000 young Australians pay the ultimate sacrifice. That's 12 per cent of the honour role in 2½ months. By the end of World War I, when our population was a lot less than it is now, 61,000 Australians had died. That's a significant percentage of the MCG for a small population. In World War II, we saw days where 50 rows were filled from the Montevideo Maru. People from both parties, including the member for Canning, have relatives who went down in that sinking. In seven minutes, we saw 1,054 die. That's one per cent of the honour role. Then, in Korea, 340 died. In Vietnam, 523 died. In Afghanistan, 47 died, including friends of those on both sides.

And what of those left behind? We have an MCG of dead Australians who died for this country, but imagine an MCG full of mums, another MCG of dads, many, many more of those who were injured and wounded and those who we have heard from the royal commission took their lives. ANZAC Day and war memorials are not about glorifying war. They are about acknowledging who we are, who they were, what they did, what they gave up and what they left behind. But, as the sun comes up on ANZAC Day and every other day, we don't just acknowledge the grief of what was lost; we acknowledge what they fought for, and we do that with smiles on our faces. We do that thinking of their last memories of home—and all of them had a last memory of home. It would have been a happy one of their family, their friends, their mum and dad and a place that stood for something—a place that still does. It's a place worthy of them and a place worth fighting for. When we stand up at citizenship ceremonies, these war memorials are for every new Australian, every Indigenous Australian, every Jewish Australian, every Islamic Australian and every Christian Australian. It's about what unites us, and we ask you to join us in this motion.

Jason Clare

We condemn the desecration of this sacred Australian site. I move:

That this debate be adjourned.

Opposition members: Shame!

Milton Dick

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

Mark Butler - I move: That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick - The question is that debate be adjourned.

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender.

Andrew Hastie

I move:

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

That this House:

(1) condemns defacing any war memorial monument in Australia for any reason at any time; and

(2) further condemns the defacing of the Australian War Memorial on June 14 and the Korean War, Vietnam War and Army memorials on ANZAC Parade in Canberra on Saturday with language including the violent 'from the river to the sea' slogan.

There are around 4,000 to 5,000 war memorials across Australia that have been erected to honour and commemorate Australia's war dead over the last century. Small grieving towns and large cities alike erected these memorials in the wake of the calamity of the First World War. Sixty thousand Australians perished in the First World War, a huge number of men killed for such a young and relatively small nation. Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey, in his A Shorter History of Australia, put it like this:

Perhaps the most drastic effect of the war would never be enumerated: it was the loss of all those talented Australians who would have become prime ministers and premiers, judges, divines, engineers, teachers, doctors, poets, inventors and farmers, the mayors of towns and leaders of trade unions, and the fathers of another generation of Australians. It was a war in which those with the gift of leadership, the spark of courage, and the willingness to make sacrifices often took the highest risks. A young nation could not afford to lose such men.

Geoffrey Blainey wrote that that's why we responded in the way we did, with so many memorials across our great country. He continued:

No nation in Europe showed such a visible desire to remember, to honour.

We've added to those memorials with subsequent wars. We fought in the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and, more recently, the Afghan war. All those wars, sadly, have led to the loss of more Australian men and women in service. We have 103,000 war dead remembered on those memorials across this nation. It's a reminder that this nation has sacrificed greatly and has borne the cost of war.

That's why the Australian War Memorial was built and opened on Remembrance Day in 1941 and why Anzac Parade was opened on Anzac Day in 1965 by Sir Robert Menzies. Anzac Parade is lined with memorials on both sides: the Hellenic Memorial, the Kemal Ataturk Memorial, the Army, Navy and Air Force memorials, the Service Nurses Memorial, the Rats of Tobruk Memorial, the Boer War, Vietnam War and Korean War memorials, and the Desert Mounted Corps Memorial. The architecture and design of all those memorials remind us of sacrifice. They remind us of sacrifice and the values of our fighting men and women—the values of service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. These are Australian values and our ADF are their custodians. If you go to the ADF website, you will see those values listed out: service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. Australians have fought for these values, Australians have died for these values and our memorials reflect these values.

That is why the ugly defacement and desecration of our war memorials is so disgraceful. It dishonours our war dead, and this, sadly, is a pattern that has emerged over the last six months. We saw, on 11 November last year, the Melbourne war memorial vandalised on Remembrance Day. On 12 January 2024 we saw the Tasmanian war memorial vandalised. On 11 March we saw the Vietnam War Memorial vandalised. In May this year we saw the Hyde Park Anzac Memorial vandalised after protests. Red dye was poured into the Pool of Reflection. On 14 June 2024 the Australian War Memorial was vandalised with pro-Palestinian slogans. Just on the weekend, the Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial and the Army Memorial on Anzac Parade were vandalised. This vandalism represents something far deeper and grotesque. This vandalism is an attack on our Australian values, but it's also an attack on our way of life. It's an attack on the thing that binds us together—a shared heritage of service and sacrifice, something that on 25 April, Anzac Day, every year all Australians come together and focus on as a nation.

But, sadly, it goes even deeper than that. On the Vietnam and Korean war memorials were written phrases like this: 'They didn't die so we could fund genocide,' 'Free Gaza,' 'Blood on your hands,' 'Free Palestine,' and, the most disgraceful, 'From the river to the sea'—a deeply anti-Semitic slogan with origins in violent terrorism.

Indeed, 'from the river to the sea' has its origins in the Hamas charter of 2017. Hamas is a terrorist organisation listed by the Australian Commonwealth. It is committed to the destruction of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. It is an organisation driven by extreme religious ideology that celebrates death, violence and hatred. They are people who will not compromise. Just in case people don't believe this, I'll make it very clear; I'm going to read now from the 2017 Hamas charter, their document of general principles and policies. Paragraph 20 says this:

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine …

And here are the words:

… from the river to the sea.

Hamas represents the worst of humanity. We've all heard it said: 'By a fruit its tree shall be known.' On 7 October, we saw the poisonous and evil fruit of Hamas's ideology on full display when they attacked, murdered and raped more than 1,000 innocent Israelis on that terrible day.

And now we have Australians defacing our war memorials with phrases straight out of the Hamas charter. In this country now we are seeing mob rule challenge the rule of law. In this country now, we are seeing mob rule challenge the rule of law. We are seeing the mob tear apart our social cohesion. We are seeing the mob challenge the values that define our nation. And we are seeing the mob trample on our war dead and the values they died for. Everyone here on this side of the House condemns in the strongest possible terms this vile, disgraceful, destructive, divisive and un-Australian behaviour.

We've all been touched in some way or other by 7 October. I think of some Jewish friends in Melbourne who I came to know through this tragedy—a couple who are living in my electorate of Canning, who contacted me soon after 7 October. I'll leave their names off the Hansard in order to protect them, because they feel unsafe. They are Jewish Australians, and the female's mother was killed by Hamas on 7 October. She'd just rung her up to let her know she was pregnant. Her brother was killed protecting his family, and her 10-month-old niece was brutally murdered. I think of her when I read 'from the river to the sea'. As an Australian, how must she feel having suffered so badly at the hands of evil terrorism? It fills me with shame. It fills all of us with shame. That's why we raise this today in the House. I say it again—we condemn this in the strongest possible terms.

This is not an isolated pattern of behaviour. We're seeing electoral offices across the country also targeted. We've seen the Prime Minister's office besieged by protestors chanting the same sorts of things. We've seen the Deputy Prime Ministers, the Attorneys-General, the minister for immigration, the minister for NDIS, the member for Franklin, the member for Wills, the member for Cooper, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Macnamara and the member for Riverina—I could go on. This is a pattern of behaviour which is tearing at the cohesion of this country. We're seeing our universities encamped by protesters who are willing to chant the same slogans that we find in the Hamas charter. We're seeing this at the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne, Monash University, the University of Adelaide, the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, Deakin University, Curtin University, RMIT University, La Trobe University, the University of Wollongong and the University of Tasmania. We have a rot at the heart of Australian society right now, and we have young Australians who are chanting terrorist slogans and defacing our war memorials. It's got to stop. It requires political leadership, and that's why we're raising this issue right now. We believe this issue demands political leadership, and we want to ensure that our law enforcement agencies across the states feel that they have our backing to enforce the rule of law, to arrest these people and to prosecute these people, and send a message that modern Australia, with all its diversity, will only cohere if people respect each other, respect the rule of law and uphold the Australian values that I've outlined today.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Barnaby Joyce

I second the motion. Deputy Speaker, when we go to a war memorial, we see names. We see your name; we see Chesters. We see the names Leigh, Buchholz and Pearce. We see the names of people of Czech descent. We see the names of so many people—McCormack. They're just names, but they're so much more. They represent people. They represent people who walked down your street. They represent people who took shade under your tree, who swam in your river and who went to your local primary school. They were people who were loved. They were people who had wives and people who had girlfriends, people who had mates and, later on, people who had husbands.

They were not superhumans. They had all the reasons not to go to war. They had all the reasons to stay at home, where it was safe. But nonetheless they did. They went and they fought, and so many of them gave their lives. That was it. There was nothing more for them. They were dead. Others came back maimed or psychologically disturbed. And then, beyond that, some came back and the marriage was over—no more marriage. Or they came back and they were just forgotten about, to later die and be buried in a pauper's grave, unmarked. Or life had just gone on without them, their careers left behind.

For so many, all that is left is their name on that memorial. That is it. And, for that, in the Australian context they are sacred. They are sacred. For so many of us, it is your grandfather, your great-grandfather, your granduncle, your son, your daughter, your mum or your dad. It's the connection to that. 'That's all I've got. All I've got left is that name.' I had seven granduncles killed—seven. Every one of my grandmother's brothers—dead. They were English; they weren't Australian. The desecration is abominable.

My father wouldn't even let you draw a swastika. You were not allowed to—not on a German plane; nothing—because symbols matter. Symbols matter. What you draw matters. He was a returned serviceman. He was repatriated. He was smashed up. These are the things where we have to make a stand.

On those war memorials are the names of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and gentiles, Christians and people of the Islamic faith. Every name is there. My grandfather fought with innumerable people of the Islamic faith, absolutely, at Gallipoli—surrounded by them.

When we think about this, a person decided to sneak out in the night with a can of spray paint. Do you know why they sneaked out in the middle of the night? Because he or she was scared. That is why they sneaked out. Scared of what—the police? What would the police do? They would arrest you. And then he or she sprayed the anarchy sign, in most instances, on our war memorials for these people. But guess what they went out against? They faced the fire coming the other direction. They had real fear they could die—die at Gallipoli, die on the Western Front, die at Guadalcanal, die in Papua New Guinea, die in Korea, die in Afghanistan, die in Vietnam. They had real fear, and they would have felt that fear; they would not have been immune from it. And their families will mourn their loss forevermore. The only thing left for those families is that piece of brass with their families' names on it. And someone—some piece of filth—has decided that their issue allows them to desecrate it.

Long debate text truncated.

Paul Fletcher

Due to a misunderstanding and no malice, I think, on any part, we moved to a third reading vote on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 without giving the opposition the opportunity to move amendments in consideration of detail. I therefore seek leave of the House to move that the third reading vote be rescinded so that we can go to the consideration of detail stage.

Tony Burke

Given the circumstances, we want to make sure that we can facilitate that there is a sensible vote. I would ask in granting leave that the member concerned restrict his comments as much as he can so that we can just get to the vote on the amendment, and we'll go through the process from where it would have been.

Milton Dick

For clarity for all members, this is being actioned under standing order 120:

A resolution or other vote of the House may be rescinded during the same session …

Leave granted.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That the third reading vote on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be rescinded under standing order 120.

Question agreed to.

Luke Howarth

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 25 (line 16), omit the Schedule.

The amendments omit schedule 1 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This schedule would create generous tax breaks for institutional investors who develop build-to-rent housing. We believe the government's handling of the housing crisis has been marked by significant failures, particularly in its approach to build-to-rent in this bill. Since the only housing policies that have delivered support to first home buyers are the housing policies Labor inherited from us, the coalition oppose the schedule with this build-to-rent policy. Labor has prioritised corporate homeownership over individual homeownership.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Petrie be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is the amendment moved by the member for Griffith be agreed to.

Mark Butler

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

This is incredibly important legislation. I've said that the House and the Senate have had the opportunity this week to do something meaningful and lasting for the health of young Australians, and I genuinely meant that. Vaping has become a very serious public health scourge in this country. Not only is it a health scourge but it is consistently rated as the number one behavioural issue in schools by school communities and by school leaders.

I want to thank the Senate for the way in which they conducted this debate. I particularly want to thank Senator Lambie, Senator Pocock and Senator Jordon Steele-John for their long, constructive discussions with the government, and with me particularly, about the way in which we can make a serious regulatory scheme work. I also want to thank a long list of outside stakeholders for their support here. This is a package of amendments not just from the Commonwealth but a package agreed between all governments. This has been a regular topic of discussion between state, territory and Commonwealth health ministers now for more than 12 months. We have a vaping enforcement working group that is co-chaired by the head of NSW Health and by Commissioner Outram, head of the Australian Border Force, that brings together not just health authorities but policing authorities. This is genuinely an intergovernmental package of reforms. These reforms are Commonwealth legislation, but they will be enforced by state and territory authorities.

I particularly want to thank officers, particularly the legal counsel of the TGA. I want to thank the tobacco branch in our department. Tony Lawler, the head of the TGA, played a direct role in the construction of these reforms. And there's a long list of groups which have fought for better tobacco control in this country for five decades: the Cancer Council; the AMA; the Australian Council on Smoking & Health; the Public Health Association; and a range of academics—in particular, Emily Banks from the ANU, who has been such a strong public advocate, as well as Becky Freeman and many others as well. I want to thank all of them for their support for this package of reforms.

The amendments to the bill that were passed in the Senate very much keep faith with the original intention of our reform. They ensure legitimate access to therapeutic goods is not unduly obstructed while recreational vaping in general retail settings is abolished in this country. If the House accepts these amendments, that abolition will take place from Monday 1 July.

This product was sold to us as a therapeutic good. It was never presented as a recreational product, particularly not one that would be so cynically and transparently marketed to our children. The tragedy of this subterfuge is that it's working. One in six high school kids is vaping; one in four young adults is vaping. We know that vaping in and of itself is unhealthy. Almost every month we are gathering new evidence about the harms that vaping is causing to young lungs and the harms that particularly nicotine addiction is causing to the mental health of young Australians, to their learning behaviours and to their socialisation. Most insidiously, we know this is a gateway to cigarettes, and that was the intention of big tobacco. I'm very confident that in the coming months and years around the world, just as their attitude to smoking control was eventually unmasked—to their shame—we will learn that this was the strategy all along from big tobacco to recruit a new generation to nicotine addiction. We are determined in this government, and I know many members of parliament in this chamber and the other share this determination. We are not going to stand by and let a new generation be recruited to nicotine addiction—not after all of the deaths, dislocation and grief that we have seen for decades and decades because of tobacco.

I strongly commend these amendments to the House. I want to thank everyone who has worked really hard in this building and beyond—in state governments and in the NGO sector in public health groups—for their support of our determination to take this very important public health measure. As I said, parliament doesn't always get an opportunity like this to do something as meaningful and as lasting for the health of the youngest members of our community as we have today. I urge the House to support these amendments.

Zali Steggall

Unfortunately, I must strongly disagree with the minister. These amendments do not, in effect, change the importance and strength of the original bill, which I voted in support of and commended the government for taking such a strong stance on such a scourge that is impacting young people, leading them to be addicted and hooked on nicotine, which leads them to smoking. We know vaping is a strategy of big tobacco. I absolutely welcomed the government's willingness to ban it and to make it incredibly hard to obtain—in particular, for it to be done only through a prescription—to ensure that it was very much limited in how people over 18 could access it. Unfortunately, the Greens, the crossbench and the Senate's amendments have diluted a lot of the effects of the legislation.

My understanding is that we now have a situation where everyone, including people under 18, will be able to have nine items on them per person, and there is no limit per day or on a situation. Essentially, you can still have a situation of a person with a lot of items on them, and there will be no consequence for that, and that can be repeated day after day. In a situation where the minister says we have one in six high school children vaping, what does that mean if they can have nine on their person each day? That is still a system where you are going to see the on-sale of vapes and a black market of vapes. You are allowing too many vapes to be in the hands of children and adults. I would ask the minister: what measures are you going to put in place to reassure parents that they are not still going to see vapes everywhere in the schools? I would ask the Greens party, who have asked for these amendments and pushed for this to happen: how will you assure parents that we're not going see this mass of vapes still for our children, impacting them in their schools?

Now we are in a situation where we're going to see pharmacies essentially take on the role of a tobacconist—those horrendous shops that we've seen pop up all around our communities, as close to schools as they possibly can be, in areas that appeal to children, young people and young adults. We now have a situation where pharmacies are going to be asked to sell behind the counter a product that we know from a health perspective is dangerous—that has a negative impact on people's health. I cannot see how it is a positive development for the government to have caved in to these amendments. I strongly support the bill as it originally stood. I am incredibly disappointed with the crossbench in the Senate and, in particular, the Greens party for having pushed for these amendments rather than supporting a strong ban that genuinely puts the health of children, young people and adults at the heart of the legislation.

I ask the minister, since this is the process for it: what protections and additional measures is the government considering to ensure we don't see that kind of onsale of vapes between children and a black market emerging? What measures will be put in place to ensure, with the sales from behind the counter in pharmacies, that there is the smoking cessation aspect and also the cessation of vaping? What measures will be put in place to ensure people are not addicted to vaping and actually reduce their reliance on vaping?

Sophie Scamps

Firstly, I'd like to thank the government and commend them for the work that they have done to eradicate vaping in the way that they can. There's been so much hard work done behind the scenes from public health agencies and health promotion agencies.

Vaping with single-use vapes was an absolute scourge—it is an absolute scourge, I should say—and one that targeted our children in a way that was extremely cynical, so much so that schools in my electorate have had to install vape detectors in bathrooms because children were leaving classrooms to go and vape. The impact that has had on children's behaviour, their concentration and their ability to learn has been absolutely horrific.

What I would like to say, however, is that I am disappointed at the watering down of what was a really incredible bill. I am disappointed. It is sad because it was, I guess, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really end the scourge of vapes and the targeting of our children with that. My concern is that the ability for vapes to be bought without a prescription by people over the age of 18—and the ability to buy over nine—will mean that people will go from pharmacy to pharmacy to pharmacy. Just as people doctor shopped to get certain prescription medications, they will be shopping around their pharmacists. They'll be able to get a large amount, and they'll be able to onsell those to their friends. Their 18-year-old friends will be able to sell to the children who are already addicted to nicotine.

We know that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to mankind. The large majority of children are already addicted to nicotine. When it becomes expensive, having to buy those vapes, they will simply turn to smoking cigarettes. It is a gateway. It leaves the door open for vaping to continue, and it leaves the door open for that move towards cigarettes. It is a cynical ploy by the big tobacco companies who want to start manufacturing these vapes. It is a cynical ploy to continue to get people hooked on nicotine, which is a gateway to smoking.

Although I really support the measures that the government is trying to implement, I'm very disappointed that it's been watered down in this way, because I think it will only leave the door open to more smoking in our young people.

Monique Ryan

I also rise to express disappointment at the watering down of this incredibly important legislation. Members of the crossbench in this House were very supportive of the government bringing on what was a really courageous innovation. It's really unfortunate that it's been necessary for the government to make these concessions in the Senate.

I'd like to make the point that one of the reasons why that has been necessary is that Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, in the Senate, have consistently expressed real concerns about the fact that Medicare services in this country are not sufficient to provide the support that people who want to give up smoking need. For GPs to be able to provide that sort of service, they need to have time, they need to have the relevant training and they need to be able to give people who want to get off cigarettes the support that they need. It's not a simple process. It's not as simple as just writing a script for vapes. What we know is that people can't access GP services in many parts of this country, and, when they do, many people are forced to deal with an out-of-pocket fee that they simply cannot afford. The need to water down this legislation in the way that we've seen in recent weeks reflects a failure of our Medicare services, which is heartbreaking to see because all of us in this place, I think, agree that smoking is a bad thing and that vapes are a bad thing. Almost all of us—I will come to the Nationals in a moment. So it is incredibly disappointing seen this problem with Medicare and its deficiencies, and, as a result of that, the need to water down this legislation.

I'd also make the point that at the moment we're seeing many Australians resorting to online providers of prescriptions, who are in many cases also going on to provide vapes to people who are looking to smoking cessation. I think this is a failure of our regulatory system which also warrants review by the minister. We're not providing best-practice care when people can go online and get a prescription for vapes which is, essentially, sent out by the script provider. That is not a situation where people are receiving best-practice care for smoking cessation.

Finally, I would like to address some concerns that many Australians have about the fact that one of the major political parties in this country continues to receive significant donations from the tobacco lobby—which is the same as the vaping lobby. I would call out the Nationals political party, which is a very bad tail, essentially, wagging the Liberal Party dog in its decision to oppose this legislation, and which has forced the government to deal with the crossbench in the Senate as it has. It's an absolute disgrace when a major political party in this country continues to receive donations from the tobacco and vaping lobby. I think that Australians should continue to consider that and that they should always take it into account every time they think about the National Party and whether or not it's reflecting the best interests of them and of their children.

I'm sorry that I can't support these amendments in this House. I'd love to; I'm very happy to see the vaping legislation go forward, but it's very disappointing that it has had to be watered down in the way that it has.

Long debate text truncated.

Andrew Gee

Last night I was outlining the reasons why I'm opposing this bill and this ban. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the words of Bonnie Skinner, who is the chief executive officer of Sheep Producers Australia. She said in her submission to the inquiry looking at this bill:

Government has a responsibility to ensure that no Australian is worse off or left behind. However, should this bill be passed, that is what will occur for thousands of Australians.

Consultation on policy implementation has been done in a rushed and unprofessional manner that has left many producers feeling removed from a process that will impact their families, businesses and communities.

Xavier Martin from New South Wales Farmers has also made some very telling statements, just as Ms Skinner has. Mr Martin says:

… now they are switching off markets for farmers, and food for hungry people.

He asks:

What's next and can we continue to feed and clothe the nation if the decision-making keeps deteriorating?

I'll return to the words of Charlie Thomas from the National Farmers Federation in the NFF's submission to the inquiry. I think Mr Thomas makes some further, very valid and salient points. He says:

The Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea Bill will end a lot of things.

It will end Australia's uplift of animal welfare standards in the Middle East.

It'll end the livelihoods of farmers, shearers, truckies, agents and stock handlers in WA.

It'll end the strong trade and interpersonal ties Australia has developed in the Middle East as a trusted food security partner.

In summary, it'll end the tremendous amount of good this industry creates, both here and abroad.

Again, this is very telling evidence from one of our key agricultural organisations in this country.

But it's not just the big organisations in the agricultural sector which are opposed to this bill. I'll leave the last word to one of our own highly respected local farmers from the Calare electorate, from near Carcoar, George King. He said that live export is not just about the ships and the animals; it is about improving human welfare through affordable and accessible food. It's about education, sharing knowledge and building relationships that subsequently have a positive impacts on animal welfare. Australia has an obligation, as a good global citizen, to export food and best practices to our neighbours. Again, salient points from one of the local farming leaders.

I'll conclude with a couple of remarks about upcoming events. Many in this House will recall the highly successful—and, I would say, evocative—move by the member for Kennedy to get me to dress up as a pig to draw attention to the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 and to stop supermarkets' snouts in the trough. That was a bill put forward by the Independents. The major parties refused to support our bill when it was put into parliament. When the pigs and the member for Kennedy came to Orange, that earned the ire of the National Party. The member for Kennedy quite rightly put the senator who was interrupting our press conference back in his place.

This leads me to my next point—and this is breaking news: the Keep the Sheep delegation will be in parliament next week on Monday and Tuesday, seeking meaningful consultation. Over 61,000 people have signed the Keep the Sheep petition. I'm also reliably informed by the Keep the Sheep delegation that they actually have a mascot. The mascot is called Murray the Sheep. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but they've told me that, to Murray's many and growing circle of friends, it's pronounced 'Maaa-ree'. So Murray the Sheep could be making an appearance with the delegation—and here's where it gets interesting. I ask: what happens if Murray the Sheep bumps into Murray the agriculture minister? That could be very interesting. Members of the press gallery might want to keep an eye out for that one. Pencil that into your diaries: the Keep the Sheep delegation will be coming here on Monday and Tuesday next week. Murray the sheep could well be joining them, and it could be a very interesting couple of days. So I urge all members of this place to consult with the Keep The Sheep delegation; they want meaningful consultation. That will be very interesting to see.

The agriculture sector does an extraordinary amount of heavy lifting for our economy and also for our national prosperity. The ag sector and farmers around Australia oppose this ban and they oppose this bill, and that's why I'm opposing it too. I urge all members of this House to oppose it as well.

Mike Freelander

I thank the member for Calare. Our Murray the minister is grey, rather than Murray the sheep, which I think is white, so we'll be able to tell the difference, thank you very much. We have a 'Murray Grey', you see!

Yes. Very good. I know that. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the member for Hunter.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

I wish to make a statement regarding the deferred division on the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business that the question be now put on the proposed suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the Member for Berowra. Standing order 133(d) does not permit a motion for closure of question under standing order 81 to be moved during a period of deferred divisions. Consequently, the division that was called for and deferred until after the MPI will not take place. The proceedings will be resumed at the point of interruption so that the Manager of Opposition Business and the Minister for Education will have the opportunity to continue their remarks. The question before the House remains that the motion be agreed to.

Mark Butler

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that debate be adjourned.

Max Chandler-Mather

I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Griffith from moving the following motion:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) too many people are struggling to afford to feed themselves and their families, while Coles and Woolworths are price gouging to make billion dollar profits;

(b) last week, CHOICE released a report that confirms what Australian shoppers already know: they are being price gouged by the supermarket duopoly, and there is not enough competition in the supermarket sector;

(c) the Greens-led Senate inquiry into supermarket prices made a number of recommendations including making price-gouging illegal, but the Government is only choosing to implement one of those recommendations—a mandatory Grocery Code of Conduct—that affects suppliers but will do nothing to bring down the cost of food for shoppers;

(d) the Albanese Labor Government has failed to take any action that would bring down the cost of food and groceries;

(e) the Chair of the ACCC has confirmed that if divestiture powers were introduced they could increase competition in the supermarket sector and under economic analysis, this would bring down the cost of grocery prices; and

(2) calls on the Government to stop offering Band-Aid answers to the big crises facing people, and implement all the recommendations of the Greens-led Senate inquiry into supermarket prices, including making price gouging illegal, and supporting the Australian Greens' Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill to introduce powers to break up the supermarket duopoly, which would lower the cost of food and groceries

This is a cost-of-living crisis and the government has to make a choice between backing ordinary Australians getting screwed over by the supermarkets or the supermarket duopoly—Coles and Woolworths—making billions of dollars of profits off people's misery. We know right now that this Labor government is choosing Coles and Woolworths. Oxfam reported that in 2022 alone Woolworths made $5 billion in crisis profits—that is, profits off the crisis going on at the moment—price gouging ordinary Australians and forcing them to choose, make awful choices, between paying the rent, feeding their kids, cutting back on grocery bills and skipping meals just so their kids can afford to eat.

In fact, just this week I spoke to a pensioner using our free food community pantry who told me her rent had just gone up $150 a week. As a result, she could no longer afford to shop at the local Coles and Woolworths. She was being forced to make tough choices. A pensioner who had worked hard all her life is now getting screwed over by a system that always puts the interests of big corporations like Coles and Woolworths ahead of ordinary people.

The reality is there are things the government could do right now. This is urgent because the government could take actions right now the tackle the power of Coles and Woolworths. We know Coles and Woolworths have 65 per cent of the supermarket share in Australia right now, and they use that power to drive up prices and screw over ordinary Australians. There are recommendations from the Greens led Senate inquiry that would tackle this issue in two important ways. First is making price gouging illegal. None of the recommendations Labor has agreed to make price gouging illegal. It is perfectly legal right now for Coles and Woolworths to continue to price gouge ordinary Australians and use their awesome and huge market power to screw over ordinary people. Second is giving the ACCC the power to go and break up Coles' and Woolworths' market share. We know that in the United States, the UK and countries around the world, their supermarket profit shares are much smaller; in fact, Coles and Woolworths have the large profit margins of any comparable supermarkets in the developed world. They do so because they have a huge market share they can use to screw over ordinary Australians.

If we give the ACCC the power to break up Coles and Woolworths, reduce their market share, increase competition and drive down prices, that will help ordinary Australians. But the Labor government have refused to do any of that. Now they have agreed to enforce the code of conduct between suppliers and supermarkets. That is good, but the problem is they've done nothing to touch the huge profit margins Coles and Woolworths are making. Not only that; while they are making these huge crisis profits, Labor refuses to even tax them fairly so we can raise money off Coles and Woolworths and use that to go and help people struggling with the cost of living. They basically get massive crisis profits, pay barely any tax on those excess profits and don't have to reduce their market share like supermarkets around the world, and it's perfectly legal for them to continue to price gouge ordinary Australians. People are getting fed up with a Labor government that continues to tinker around the edges of a massive cost-of-living crisis and refuses to do anything substantial to tackle the structural issues in our economy and political system that allow big corporations to screw over ordinary Australians.

That same Oxfam report found something pretty remarkable—that the share of national income going to corporate profits had reached a record high in Australian history. At exactly the same time we hear about this cost-of-living and inflation crisis, the government seem to have decided they're going to let the RBA jack up interest rates and punish ordinary mortgage holders and renters for a crisis they had nothing to do with. We know who is causing this crisis—big corporations who, under previous Labor and Liberal governments, have accrued enormous power and are using that power right now to drive up prices—particularly Coles and Woolworths—and screw over ordinary Australians. They are Chevron, Exxon Mobil, big oil and gas corporations, Coles and Woolworths and the big banks. Just last year Commonwealth Bank recorded a record $10 billion profit. Across the board big corporations are screwing over mortgage holders, people trying to go to the supermarkets, renters and people trying to make ends meet, but at the same time those big corporations are making massive profits.

Let's be clear about the human consequences of this. I remember chatting to a renter who was having to cut back on meals for herself just so she could afford her baby's nappy rash cream. I have been chatting to pensioners having to make tough choices and single mums skipping meals so their kids can afford to eat. This should not happen in a wealthy country like Australia. It is particularly deeply frustrating when we know, at the same time, that the government has the power to tackle this.

The Prime Minister made these absurd comparisons to the Soviet Union when the Greens proposed rules and laws that exist in the United States. I would be surprised if anyone was going to make a comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union. It would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious. Time and again the government and the Prime Minister seem more interested in making silly, stupid jokes than in treating their roles with the seriousness with which they should treat them and recognising that they are in government. How is it that they can continue to pretend they don't have the power to do these things? All of a sudden they're the government and they are the ones with the power, but they keep pretending all they can do is say nice words and tell people they feel their pain. It is all hypocritical and all useless if they don't take action to help people.

Today we are suspending standing orders because there is an urgent crisis going on right now, and there are practical things the government could do to take on the power of Coles and Woolworths. The fundamental choice this Labor government has to make is whether it chooses ordinary Australians doing it tough or the massive supermarkets, the Coles and the Woolworths, screwing over ordinary Australians.

Here are the three things you could do right now: support the Greens bill in the Senate to allow the government and the ACCC to break up the market share of Coles and Woolworths, make price gouging illegal, and give the ACCC the power to take Coles and Woolworths to court where they are caught price gouging ordinary Australians. Introduce a super profits tax on Coles, Woolworths and all the other big corporations screwing over ordinary people. Raise billions of dollars and use that to help ordinary Australians doing it tough.

Adam Bandt

I second the motion. It is critical that this parliament and politicians take action today, because right now there will be people going to the checkout at Coles and Woolies and putting items aside because they can't afford them. There will be people skipping meals because rent has soared on average $100 and mortgages about $200 a week under this Labor government. They are now putting items back onto the shelf and skipping meals because they can't afford to do everything, because we are in a cost-of-living crisis. This is happening at the same time as these supermarkets, Coles and Woolies, are raking in billions of dollars of profits, and they're price gouging.

As the consumer organisation Choice has made very clear, when you go to Coles or Woolies, there's almost no difference in price at the end of the day. But, in many places around this country, that's the only choice that you've got. And we've got one of the most concentrated supermarket sectors in the world, which means these massive corporations have huge amounts of power to set the price wherever they want and to price gouge. In the face of that, the government could do something.

The government could take on these big corporations, make price gouging illegal, and say, 'Enough of your profiteering in a cost-of-living crisis; we are going to back people.' But, instead, the government comes up today with an announcement that effectively says they're going to back Coles and Woolies. All the government will do is ask Coles and Woolies to sign up to a code they've already agreed to sign up to. Meanwhile, under Labor, price gouging remains perfect legal. Coles and Woolies can make billions of dollars of profit, and it is perfectly legal.

People are getting sick of governments making press statements and announcements that on the surface appear to be tackling the cost-of-living problems. But then, when you actually look at it, you realise they do nothing to tackle the systemic crises that we're facing. People are sick of these bandaid answers to real structural crises that we are facing. People are sick of seeing Labor tinker around the edges when they know that, when they turn up next week, even after this code has been implemented, the prices will still be exactly the same.

The Greens put the price gouging of the supermarkets and their profiteering onto the agenda, and the Greens-led Senate inquiry said that there are a number of things that we need to do. This was one of them, but you've got to do the other things as well. Otherwise, the supermarkets will keep price gouging. You have to do what other countries around the world have done, which is to say to Coles, Woolies and the big supermarkets, 'If you keep abusing people and abusing your market power, we're going to break you up.' It's time to break up the big supermarkets, stop their price gouging and make price gouging illegal. But, to do that, you need to put some teeth into our laws—not make the supermarkets sign up to a code of conduct they've already agreed to sign up to anyway.

At the end of the day, this place has a choice. The politicians in government need to decide: are they going to back the public interest, or are they going to back vested interests and corporate interests? The Prime Minister and those in government are all too happy to get their photos taken standing next to these big supermarket chains, use them for photo ops, have them at their fundraisers and take donations. But, when asked to make price gouging or profiteering illegal, they won't do it. Labor is letting Coles and Woolies continue price gouging and make massive profits. Labor does not tax them fairly.

As a result, people are suffering. If Labor think that their announcement today to do something that the supermarkets had already agreed to do anyway is going to satisfy people who are struggling to make their groceries add up—at the same time as paying their mortgage or rent or thinking about how they're going to put braces on their kids, because Labor won't put dental into Medicare—then they've got another think coming. People know the system is broken at the moment. It is certainly working for the supermarkets. It's certainly working for Coles. The system is working for Coles. The system is working for Woolies. The system is working for Labor, for Liberals, for politicians, but it is not working for the people. This place needs to make price gouging illegal. We need to stop the profiteering and we need to do it today.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

I have received letters from the honourable member for Deakin and the honourable member for Macnamara proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important. That is the matter proposed by the honourable member for Deakin, namely:

This government's failure to solve Australia's housing crisis.

I therefore call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Michael Sukkar

Thanks very much, Mr Speaker—I've already started.

Milton Dick

It doesn't matter if you've started. You can just pause.

Tony Burke

The member's right: he had already started, which means I am now allowed, under standing order 46(e), to move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Milton Dick

Under the standing orders, that is correct. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Helen Haines

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I want to specifically address the measures in this bill which will introduce mandatory climate reporting requirements for large businesses regarding climate-related governance, strategy, risk management and emissions targets, including for greenhouse gases. This will include reporting emissions from supply chains, so farmers in regional elections like mine will be impacted by this bill. Businesses who must comply would meet two out of three thresholds: one, that they have over 100 employees; two, that the value of their consolidated gross assets is $25 million or more each financial year; and, finally, that the business's consolidated revenue for that financial year is $50 million or more.

I welcome measures that Australia's major companies must now be transparent with and can be held accountable by investors and consumers when it comes to climate change. We must measure how businesses are progressing as they transition to net zero emissions. We're now living in a world impacted severely by climate change. This is accepted internationally. Indeed, this bill makes sure we are in step with international requirements for a credible climate disclosure regime.

Even though these measures are necessary, which is why I will ultimately support the bill, I want the House to hear and I want to acknowledge that they will be challenging for some sectors. In particular, the measures will be challenging for the agricultural and primary production sectors. Although some farming businesses won't meet the thresholds for mandatory climate risk reporting, it's important to acknowledge that they are part of the supply chain for larger businesses that will. Emissions from the supply chain are known as scope 3 emissions, and scope 3 emissions reporting will require farmers to report on the emissions from production, including diesel and farm machinery in transport, fertiliser and even methane emissions from cattle. This bill is setting out what is going to happen with or without legislation.

Farmers are increasingly required to provide the emission profiles for insurance and banking and to identify opportunities for emissions reductions on their own farms. This may be the case, but I do hear farmers' concerns about meeting emissions reporting requirements. Many farms struggle to calculate and disclose their farm emissions. It's a relatively new part of farming practice. It can be costly, confusing and time-consuming. Many farmers I speak to across my electorate of Indi also tell me that they want to do their fair share in reducing our national emissions but they must be mindful about the expense to their livelihoods. They talk to me about the challenge in balancing these factors.

To get the balance right, it's critical that governments provide the resources and support to get farmers up to speed on emissions reporting and don't leave farmers carrying the cost of compliance. Hearing farmers' concerns about emissions accounting and reductions is why, in the 2022 election and last year, I advocated for federally funded agricultural extension officers. Extension officers would work with farmers one-on-one to adopt the technology, products and farming practices that would help them calculate and then lower their emissions to achieve net zero. These extension officers would translate the science into practice, delivering the research on how to accurately measure soil carbon or what nutritional additives could be used to reduce methane emissions in livestock, for example. The advice must be from local, trusted, neutral, independent officers who know the specific environment that the particular farmer is working in, because the techniques applied in low-rainfall, poorer soils will be different from those in high-rainfall, organically rich soils.

Government funded extension programs have been used historically to help farmers navigate changing times and changing technology. Extension programs have fallen by the wayside in recent times, but I was pleased to see, in last year's budget, the take-up of my idea and the funding of a network of sustainable agriculture facilitators. These facilitators will provide extension services to farmers to build their knowledge of climate-smart practices. This directly replicates my policy, which, I heard from farmers in my electorate, would indeed help bridge this significant knowledge gap. I understand that the design of the sustainable agricultural facilitators is in the final stages and will be delivered by regional development partners, including natural resource management organisations. I very much look forward to learning more as these agriculture facilitators are rolled out, including in my electorate of Indi.

Sustainable agriculture facilitators sit within the broader $302 million Climate-Smart Agriculture Program. This program is all about driving agricultural sustainability, productivity and competitiveness by reducing emissions, building resilience to climate change and conserving national capital and biodiversity. Under the latest budget, I was pleased to see an additional $63 million to support the reduction in emissions in agriculture, including $28.7 million to improve greenhouse gas accounting. The National Farmers Federation welcomed this announcement, saying it aligns with what the farming sector has been calling for, giving them much-needed independent advice to make informed decisions about their businesses. More money to help farmers calculate and reduce their emissions is a timely announcement when considering the bill before us right now. It's common sense that the government supports farmers in this way if it is also requiring them to report on climate risk issues like the scope 3 emissions I've just outlined.

I support the bill, and I will watch the government closely to ensure that they continue delivering the support farmers need to calculate and reduce their emissions. This, in turn, produces sustainable, productive and profitable food and fibre needed to feed and clothe our nation and to remain competitive in international markets.

Long debate text truncated.