For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

Julian Leeser

I seek leave to move the following motion:

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

(1) private Members' business order of the day No. 32 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; and

(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.

Leave not granted.

I move:

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

(1) private Members' business order of the day No. 32 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; and

(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.

I'm moving this motion to suspend standing orders because we cannot wait another day and watch the level of antisemitism continue to build on our campuses unanswered. We need to put an inquiry in place before second semester begins at the end of July.

There should be nothing surprising to anyone about this bill. I've been talking about a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus since November last year. On 3 May, I announced I'd be preparing this bill. I released terms of reference three weeks later. On 16 May, the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Henderson, along with several non-Green crossbenchers in the House and the other place wrote to the Prime Minister calling on the government to establish a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus. Other crossbenchers also wrote separately to the Prime Minister asking that a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus be established. On Monday 3 June, I introduced the private member's bill for a judicial inquiry that I now seek leave to have debated.

Antisemitism on campus is not new. The problem of campus antisemitism before 7 October was identified by the Australian Jewish student survey. It included that 64 per cent of Australian Jewish university students experienced antisemitism on campus and 19 per cent stayed away because of antisemitism. The massive increase in campus antisemitism since 7 October has included Jewish students being spat at and taunted with swastikas; the office of Jewish staff members being urinated on; academics saying that Jews don't deserve cultural safety; academics denying that the rapes on 7 October even occurred; the failure of university leaders to deal properly with antisemitism, including dealing with encampments; vice-chancellors implying that hate-fuelled protests are just the price that Jewish students have to pay for free speech; and a collective statement from 39 university chancellors which was so weak it didn't even mention the words 'Jew' or 'antisemitism'.

If this motion is successful, we will debate a bill with provides for the establishment of a commission of inquiry with royal commission powers, led by a current or former judge, to inquire into antisemitism on university campuses. This inquiry would examine incidents of antisemitic activity both before and after 7 October. It will consider whether the response of university leaders, regulators, representative organisations and others have been adequate. Jewish communal organisations support this bill for a judicial inquiry, and they reject the general antiracism inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which is the federal representative body of the Jewish community in Australia, has said they wholeheartedly endorse my bill. They have said:

A judicial inquiry, as originally called for in May by Mr Leeser, would allow Jewish students and staff to give evidence in a closed hearing, without having to fear reprisals from the fanatical fringe of anti-Israel or Jew-hating students, or victimisation from anti-Israel and antisemitic faculty members. There would be no opportunity for political grandstanding by any party, and the sole focus would be on getting to the truth.

Unfortunately, the government's plan is not to have a standalone judicial inquiry to deal with antisemitism on campus but to have a general antiracism inquiry running for two years, dealing with racism against First Nations people, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Can I say, as a Jewish Australian, I am so sick and tired of this government, the Human Rights Commission, universities and other bodies in Australia being unable to say antisemitism without saying Islamophobia in the same breath. To fail to singularly identify and call out the particularity of antisemitism and, indeed, the largest increase in antisemitism in our history in and of itself is antisemitic. It creates a dangerous narrative for our social harmony that suggests a Jewish-Muslim conflict here in Australia, when so much of the antisemitism is actually propagated by the militant socialist left.

Islamophobia is a bad thing, and it should be called out. It must be called out and properly dealt with. After the 11 September terrorist attacks in 2001, there was heightened Islamophobia in this country. No-one was saying at that time that we couldn't mention Islamophobia without mentioning antisemitism in the same breath. The level and scale of antisemitism at the moment is unprecedented in the history of this country—a country which has had Jews here since the First Fleet and which uniquely in this world has been one of the few countries where there has been no formal discrimination against Jews. But we have to tell the truth. There's only one community which has been subjected to those vile Opera House protests, where radicals and jihadists sought to do harm to that community, and that's the Jewish community. There is only one community that has had its artists and creatives doxxed, and that's the Jewish community. There is only one community subjected to the hate filled drive-throughs in its suburbs, and that's the Jewish Community. There is only one community on campus that's having its students spat at and taunted and its staff offices urinated on with the Vice-Chancellor standing by, saying, 'That's just the price you have to pay for free speech,' and that's the Jewish community.

Jewish Australians are so sick and tired of the moral equivalence, particularly because so many Jewish Australians are always at the forefront, pushing back against bigotry against other groups. Yet, at our time of need, we feel abandoned. Martin Luther King said, 'In the end we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.' You can't blame the Jewish community for having no confidence in the Human Rights Commission, given the commission's record. Remember, the commission was the body designed to prevent racism and stand for social harmony, but for more than six months they have said nothing about the largest increase in antisemitism in the history of this country.

At Senate estimates, the president of the commission repeatedly refused to call out antisemitism and condemn Hamas. The new Race Discrimination Commissioner, the person who would be running the government's inquiry, could not condemn the phrase 'from the river to the sea'—a phrase rightly condemned by the Prime Minister and rightly condemned in a bipartisan motion in the other place. The Race Discrimination Commissioner said that he'd have to see the context. There is systemic racism against Jews at the commission as evidenced by the statements and action of their staff and contractors. This includes the head of Hugh consulting, who was engaged to prepare antiracism material but was involved in the doxxing of 600 Jewish creatives and publicly urged her followers to, 'let these effing Zionists know no effing peace.' The commission's lawyer publicly stated that Jewish people are not entitled to cultural safety and suggested the 7 October terrorist attacks could make sense. Referring to Jewish people, another staff member wrote, 'What are they without Zionism? If we take that away—their violence, their toxicity, their racism—what's left of them as a people?'

Then there was the call by commission staff in relation to the terrorist attacks 'to acknowledge Israel's occupation of Palestine as the source of the violence and embed an acknowledgement of Israel's apartheid, occupation and genocide in all communications regarding this matter' from the commission.

This is why Peter Wertheim from the ECAJ has said, 'Sadly, the Jewish community cannot have confidence in an inquiry to be conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission.' He continued:

The AHRC's record of public statements and action in the face of the unprecedented surge of antisemitism that has occurred in Australia, especially since 7 October 2023, has been conspicuously deficient. The recent record of some of the people associated with the Commission has also featured a shocking level of bias.

Yesterday the Prime Minister had fine words to say about the need to deal with antisemitism—words that I hope every member of this House could support. He said, 'There is no place for antisemitism in our communities, at our universities or outside electorate offices. No-one should be targeted for who they are. The targeting of people because they are Jewish is completely unacceptable.' Today, this is the opportunity for all members to give effect to his words by supporting this urgency motion and supporting passage of this bill.

At their best, universities are life-changing places where people get an education and improve their opportunities in life. It's where the next generation of leaders is formed. That's why it's so important antisemitism doesn't take hold. It's why it's so important students are taught about the evils of antisemitism, that it's important to always reject antisemitism however it manifests and that it's not okay to be a bystander. If we're not teaching this to the next generation, then we're setting ourselves up for a society based on conspiracy, not fact, on 'othering', not personal responsibility, and on social discord, not social harmony. What happens on campus today sets the tone for the Australia of tomorrow.

As the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said, this is a time for moral courage and moral clarity. We cannot have a situation in this country where Jewish staff and students are being given a message on campus that says, 'You are not welcome here.' It is time that this parliament said, 'Enough.' It is time to support this motion and bring this bill on for debate, and establish a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus, to deal properly with a problem that was festering since before 7 October and has got manifestly worse since that time. I commend this motion to all members of the House.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

David Littleproud

I move:

That the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 be referred to the Standing committee on Agriculture for consideration and an advisory report at 8 October 2024.

I move this under standing order 143. I believe that it's important, when a government is about to make such an important decision on the livelihoods of 3,000 Western Australians, that it shows them respect, not the contempt that it has shown these men and women who have lawfully gone about their business, in a lawful trade, with the best animal welfare standards in the world. They are having that ripped away from them, taken away, without proper consultation. Even the panel that the government put up was giving only 24 or 48 hours notice to farmers to turn up—and that was invited farmers, not all farmers. They were not public meetings where everyone could come and understand what was being put to them. But people were asked to turn up within 24 hours and told, 'Give up your farming practices for the day'—in the middle of sowing, in the middle of shearing—'to hear why we're doing this.' What contempt for a government to do that to its own people!

So it's important that these men and women in Western Australia are heard about why their livelihoods are being ripped away from them all because of ideology. There is no scientific or economic reason why this trade should stop. In fact, what you are going to see by Australia shutting down the live sheep export industry is the senseless and horrific deaths of millions of sheep from around the world, from the markets that take up our place—countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, South Africa. They will be the ones that export sheep—

Andrew Wilkie

Mate, that's the drug dealers defence!

David Littleproud

There is no moral value or compass that anyone that wants to go against this—

Andrew Wilkie

That's the drug dealers defence!

David Littleproud

You are morally bankrupt! You are absolutely morally bankrupt to sit there and value the welfare of the sheep of Australia over that of those from another country. You are morally bankrupt! You are nothing but morally bankrupt!

Michael McCormack

He should withdraw.

Milton Dick

The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. The minister will just pause for a second while I deal with this matter. The language used in the chamber is completely unacceptable. I only heard part of what was being said. I'm just going to invite the member for Clark to withdraw any unparliamentary statements that he made.

Andrew Wilkie

Mr Speaker, out of respect for you, I withdraw.

Michael McCormack

No. He should withdraw unreservedly.

Milton Dick

Order! Under Practice, that has been a provision and accepted.

Long debate text truncated.

For votes: Greens.  

Against votes: Spender, Labor, Coalition.

Adam Bandt

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That this House recognise the State of Palestine.

Leave not granted.

I move:

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

That this House recognise the State of Palestine.

Recognition of Palestine is long overdue; 143 countries have already done it. Three more—Norway, Spain and Ireland—joined overnight, and today Australia must stand with them in recognising the State of Palestine. This is not just a symbolic move; it is a critical step towards peace and towards ending the slaughter that we are seeing with the invasion of Gaza right now. It is a concrete step towards peace and, as the Prime Minister of Norway said last week, 'There cannot be peace in the Middle East if there is no recognition.'

It is critical that we debate this now, just as other countries have interrupted what they were doing to recognise Palestine now, because the scale and of the slaughter and the genocide that we are witnessing is now topping 36,000 people—36,000 civilians who have been slaughtered. A health system has been destroyed. There are mass graves in hospitals, aid has been blocked and children are now dying because they do not have enough to eat or drink. We are seeing, right now, human-engineered famine that is taking a toll on a civilian population that amounts to collective punishment of these people. And it is time for countries, including Australia, to step in and do something. Just as other countries have made it a priority to recognise the State of Palestine, so should this government today, right now, by backing this motion.

The Greens know that recognition alone won't stop the invasion or end the occupation. We want to see the government take some real, concrete steps to put pressure on this extreme war cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu that is subject to orders to stop genocide. We want to see an end to the two-way trade, the military trade, with Israel. We want to see sanctions imposed on this extreme war cabinet and we want to see the ambassador expelled until this slaughter ends.

Even if you disagree with all of those measures and are unwilling to take those steps to bring about some practical pressure on this extreme war cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu, you can still support this motion because this motion says very simply, 'This House will recognise the State of Palestine,' and join the majority of other countries around the world that do the same. Labor promised people before the election that it would do this. Labor promised people that it would do the exact words in this motion. So now at stake is also something that needs to be resolved today, namely: whether, when it comes to the push for peace, people can believe that Labor will do what they say.

I notice in the last couple of days that Labor has said that they support a two-state solution. You can't support a two-state solution if you recognise only one side of it. What is becoming crystal clear is that Labor's words are just a fig leaf for saying that something might happen in the future while they back now the destruction of the conditions that would allow a Palestinian state to survive and thrive. Labor's empty words are a hope that something might be done in the future, while Labor backs to the hilt a genocidal war that is destroying the possibility of a state of Palestine. Instead what has happened, despite them taking to the election a promise to say that they would recognise Palestine, Labor has stood with the extreme Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, together with its ministers, who've dehumanised the Palestinians and called for the erasure of their territory.

Labor has stood by as settlements have been built, with over 400,000 settlers in the West Bank, in what is meant to be Palestinian territory and part of a Palestinian state. Labor has stood by as checkpoints have been built and roads that Palestinians aren't able to use have been constructed that divide their country into Bandustans, where they are unable to exercise effective self-government. Meanwhile, Labor has backed the invasion in Gaza that has seen a health system destroyed, a human engineered famine and the majority of people's homes in that region be razed to the ground. Labor has backed every single step that has been taken by this extreme Netanyahu government to destroy the conditions of a two-state solution. I say to Labor here, now, 'This is urgent, because if you really believe what you are saying about recognising the State of Palestine, then you would stop backing the invasion, you would recognise Palestine now and you would take steps against this extreme Israeli government that is conducting a genocide, instead of backing them to the hilt.'

Recognition—what this motion is about is recognition and recognition only. This isn't just a political question; it is a deeply moral question as well, because the people of Palestine have endured displacement and suffering for far too long. This motion is about saying, 'The values that we hold dear, the right to live in freedom and exercise self-determination and to wake up every day thinking about how am I going to make my life better rather than how am I going to avoid another bomb that is going to fall on me.' Those simple values about wanting to live in peace and security. This is about saying those values should be enjoyed equally by everyone around the world. Those values of peace and security and self-determination should be enjoyed equally by Palestinians and Israelis alike. This is about saying, as a matter of morality, 'We will not stand by as others' rights to self-determination and to live in peace and security and freedom are destroyed.'

There will come a time when people look back at this horrific invasion and ask, 'How did we let it happen?' And when they do, they will look at what was said in this chamber, they will look at how every member of this chamber voted and they will look at the actions that took place. There will be no hiding. The history books will not lie. At the moment, what they will see is every Labor and Liberal member voting together to support the invasion, against the calls of the United Nations and humanitarian groups around the world. They will see Labor and Liberal continuing to say that this is about Israel's right to defend itself, when everyone is saying those actions have now exceeded and gone far beyond that and are amounting to collective punishment of civilians. They will see Labor defunding UNWRA—critical funding to Palestinians—right when it was needed most, and they will see Labor doing little more than offering stern words, even after Israel's military attacked Rafah, having been ordered by the International Court of Justice not to.

Even after the International Court of Justice said, 'Don't invade Rafah,' all that Labor can do is offer hand-wringing tweets, continue the trade with Israel and continue to act as if nothing happened. Well, genocide and war crimes happen when the perpetrators think there are going to be no consequences, when they think governments around the world will stand by, do nothing and continue to actively back their invasion. Hand-wringing tweets from this government are no longer good enough. It is time for the government to take action, and it can start by recognising the state of Palestine.

The best time to have stopped this horrific invasion was eight months ago, but the next best time is now. There is a reason other countries around the world, right now, today, are shifting their positions to recognise the state of Palestine. Australia should join them. Labor promised at the election that they would do that and, if they believe even a 10th of what they say, they should vote for this motion so that this House, today, recognises the state of Palestine.

Max Chandler-Mather

At the very least, this government should recognise the state of Palestine. Really, the question is: what is the red line for Labor when it comes to Israel's genocide in Gaza? How many kids does Israel have to burn alive before Labor will literally take any action against Israel? What will it take for it to stop giving public money to Israeli weapons companies? What will it take for it to stop sending arms and ammunition to Israel?

To get the human consequences of this action, here's just one moment from the Rafah massacre, as quoted in CNN:

A video filmed for CNN in the hospital courtyard shows several body bags laid on the ground with dozens of anguished people including men, women and children crowded around their late loved ones.

People are seen crouching over the body bags, with some caressing their loved one's lifeless bodies. At least one baby's head can be seen sticking out of a bag, as the woman beside it shouts: "My whole family has perished."

…   …   …

Lifting the baby boy's body to the camera, Mahmoud Abu Taha cries out, "this is who they are targeting. This is their objective. This is the generation they're looking for. This is the safe Rafah they talk about."

…   …   …

Another eyewitness says a five-day-old boy named Ghaith Abu Rayya was killed in the airstrike. The footage shows him opening a small body bag to reveal the infant's head, saying his body has been dismembered.

"We are all alone. Nobody cares about us," he cries.

He is seen opening another body bag next to Ghaith's, sobbing, and saying, "my beloved Ramy," who he says is Ghaith's 33-year-old father.

This is just one moment for the 35,000 people—Palestinians—that have been murdered in Palestine by the Israeli government.

But what's most remarkable about the reactions from members on either side in this House is the lack of responsibility. In response to the speech of the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Australian Greens, we sat here and heard: 'Oh, no. The government doesn't back the invasion of Gaza. No. No. We don't do any of that.' Well, take some responsibility. You are the government. You signed a $917 million weapons contract with Elbit Systems in February this year. The CEO of Elbit Systems, the blacklisted Israeli weapons company, has said recently, 'We have seen increased interest in our weapons recently because they're in operational use in Gaza'—as in killing Palestinians.

In February this year, you allowed for $1.5 million worth of arms and ammunition to be sent to Israel. And you say, 'Oh, no. That didn't happen'! It's from the government's own data. There are other country that can expel ambassadors when countries engage in genocide, but, no, there's nothing here. Those are actions that this government could take. You could recognise the state of Palestine, and you sit here and pretend that you have no power. Let's be real about this: every time Israel massacre civilians and burn children alive, they look around the world and wait for the consequences—and none come from governments like Australia. That's why they know they can get away with it.

As the member for Melbourne said, history will remember people in this place and what they did. They'll ask, 'What did you do when there was a massacre and a genocide going on in Gaza, when mothers and fathers held the lifeless bodies of their children in their hands who had starved to death because they had run out of energy to breathe as a result of Israel's engineered famine?' They'll ask: 'What did you do? What did you do in this place?' It's remarkable—I'm sure we're going to hear some members in this place get up after this and talk about social cohesion, and they're going to say words like, 'We want to oppose the invasion of Rafah.' Well, sending weapons to Israel, sending money—

Tim Watts

That's a lie!

Max Chandler-Mather

A lie! Here we go; a Labor member in this place says it's a lie. Go to your own government's website. What is the $1.5 million to Israel in arms ammunition? This is the most remarkable thing. At the very least, stand up and take responsibility. At the very least, stand up and take responsibility for the death and destruction that you are complicit in.

Milton Dick

Order! The member for Griffith will cease using the word 'you'. I am not part of this debate. You shall direct your remarks through the chair under the standing orders.

Max Chandler-Mather

Thank you, Speaker—members of this place who are from the Labor Party, who are complicit in this genocide in Gaza. It is genuinely remarkable. There is more passion in this place from members of the Labor Party about defending their own reputation than there is in this place about the murder of 35,000 Palestinians. Let's be real about this. You know what's affecting social cohesion? An Australian government sending arms and weapons and ammunition, and trading in arms with a country carrying out a genocide that sees people starved to death, lose the energy to breathe and burnt alive, and mothers and fathers losing their children.

Long debate text truncated.

Stephen Jones

I move:

That the House insist on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is a good bill. It provides $20,000 in instant asset write-offs from July for over 300 small businesses in this country. It'll increase cash flow. It'll decrease the compliance burden and provide over $290 million worth of relief to small businesses throughout the country.

About 10 days ago, the Leader of the Opposition stood at that dispatch box and gave his budget speech in reply. In his budget speech in reply, he said that he supported providing an instant asset write-off for small businesses in this country to provide more cash flow and compliance relief for small businesses. I thought it sounded good. You can imagine my surprise that, at the very same time, he was instructing his senators in the other place to vote against a bill which would provide an instant asset write-off for small businesses of over $290 million. What we see here is that they say that they want lower taxes and lower taxes for small business, but then they vote for higher taxes and higher taxes for small business. They say that they support small businesses, but then they vote to oppose the interests of small businesses.

There's a pattern of behaviour here. They say that they want lower energy bills for Australians, but then they vote against energy bill relief for all Australians. They say that they want cheaper medicines for all Australians, but then they vote against provisions for cheaper medicines for Australians. They say that they want higher wages for Australians, but then they vote against measures which will provide higher wages for Australians. They say that they want the government to spend less, and then they tell their people in the other place to vote for amendments which will increase the spending. When it comes to the coalition, you cannot trust a word they say, because they say one thing and then instruct their members and their senators in this place and the other place to do the exact opposite.

Paul Fletcher

Unfortunately, Minister Jones has just given an entirely misleading explanation of what is going on here, which sadly is not inconsistent with his form in this place over a number of years. The simple fact is that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 contains measures to support small business, which is true, including provisions for the instant asset write-off, which is also true. What is not true is that the coalition is opposed to the instant asset write-off. On the contrary, we support it. The amendments that we moved in the Senate—which I am pleased to say received the support of the Senate in cross-party recognition of the compelling merit of the amendments we moved in the face of the obdurate opposition and obdurate resistance of this government—would extend and strengthen the effect of the instant asset write-off scheme.

Why did we do this? We did this because on this side of the House we are consistent, resolute, determined, trenchant supporters of small business. We know that small business is the very foundation and bedrock of our economy. We know that small-business people do whatever it takes to open their doors every day. If sales are down and times are tough, very often it is the business owner who accepts less in their pocket every month in terms of owners' drawings out of the business so that employees can continue to be paid. Small-business people and small businesses are the very backbone of our economy. When we were in government, the previous coalition government consistently supported small business. We consider that the amendments that we moved in the Senate, amendments that were accepted by a range of other parliamentarians representing a range of other parties and quite a number of Independents as well, have compelling merit. It's disappointing, I have to say, that the government is not prepared to consider them. We think they speak absolutely for themselves in terms of the benefit they will bring to small-business people all around Australia.

Let's remember: this is a cold, dark, long winter for small business. This is a very grim time. Very soon, thanks to the extraordinary laws passed by this government, laws that reflect the agenda of the union movement—every one of the Labor parliamentarians in this place dances to the tune of their union pay masters; the pre-selection of every one of them depends upon the union bosses—and as a consequence of the laws that have been passed in this place by these servants of the union movement, a movement that can command only eight per cent of private sector employees as members, small-business people around the country will very shortly have no legal protection when they are visited by a large group of burly, tattooed union officials with 'CFMEU' or other patches on their T-shirts and jackets. Those small-business people will have no capacity to resist the demand to enter, thanks to the perverse laws this government has passed. Small-business people, sadly, will face no option but to have union thugs enter. Sadly, certainly when it comes to the CFMEU, many of them convicted criminals, many of them convicted multiple times, they will be free to enter the premises of small businesses around this country. On the other side of the House they think that's a laughing matter. We don't think it's a laughing matter. We think it's very serious, indeed. We think it's a grave error in judgement.

In this grim, dark winter for small businesses, the amendments that we moved in the Senate, which would have extended the operation of the instant asset write-off scheme, would bring a shaft of light into the lives of small-business people. They were passed by the Senate. On this side of the House, we strongly believe that they should also be passed by this House.

Zali Steggall

I call on the government to stop playing politics with small business—97.3 per cent of businesses in Australia are small businesses, and they are hurting. I moved amendments when this bill was first before this place in relation to extending the scale of the asset write-off and the time frame for it to go for another year. The government dug its heels in, and I should say the opposition voted against it. You're all very happy to play politics, but the people on the ground that are hurting actually need this to happen.

What happens in practice is this legislation is stalled. Of course, the government, at budget time—and it was back in the budget in 2023—made the big announcement that there was going to be this asset write-off. Businesses—small businesses—think they can count on that. They make provisions, and then nothing happens. The legislation doesn't pass either House and then they are left in the situation of not being able to do the measure that was promised by the government on budget night. What we saw last week, with the budget for this year, was the announcement again, but again the digging-in of the heels by the minister and by the government of insisting on this lower asset write-off. The reality is, you do not have majority in both places, and the majority in the other place has told you, loud and clear—has insisted—on returning this bill with an amended asset write-off to the $30,000.

So the question to the government now is: are they going to continue to play politics and risk all small businesses? We know that some 43 per cent of small businesses aren't profitable at the moment and are continuing to face an ongoing storm of cost increases and regulatory complexity. The government have a question before them: it is in their hands now. Get on the side of small business and embrace these amendments. The will of the other place has been clear. The majority in that place have asked you to reconsider and to amend this provision to ensure it is of sufficient scale that small businesses can actually take advantage of it.

The uncertainty is incredibly damaging. How can small-business owners have confidence in the government if they can't even know when something is going to come into effect or what scale it's going to be, and it takes so long? As it is, with the discussion in this place, so many small-business owners wouldn't even know what's happening. There isn't even a way of making sure that they are informed. Rather than playing politics, being obstinate and sticking to this to send it back to the other place—where it is clear it will not pass in its current form—I call on the government to recognise the need of small businesses to have access to this measure, to accept the amendments that the majority have asked the government to accept, and to ensure it passes amended.

The amendment to $30,000 is incredibly important. This is an asset write-off around an energy incentive bonus. It will help businesses make meaningful investments to ensure they do increase their productivity, their sustainability and their efficiencies. For the government, the question is: are they going to stand up for small businesses, or is it just tokenistic on budget night that they make an announcement and there's nothing that comes with it? For the opposition, the same goes. They voted against it when it came here before, then it got amended in the other place and has now come back. I note it was part of the budget in response speech, yet here we are. It's a promise for the future in an election.

Small businesses need you all to stop playing politics and actually get on with the job of helping them. Pass this legislation amended rather than sending it back to the other place, where it will again be stalled. There's always a lot of talk from all the major parties about being on the side of small business, but now's their chance to show it. Vote for this amended legislation.

Michael McCormack

One of the most important components of our economy is small businesses. They represent 97 per cent of our businesses. There used to be a joke: 'What is a small business? Well, when Labor's in government it used to be a big business or a medium-sized business. Under a coalition government, they made it a small business.' Whilst that is a slightly humorous little tale, the fact remains that we as a parliament should be doing everything in our power to help small business. All too often, what we see when Labor is in power is the unions taking the hand of the members opposite, and they just put so many obstacles in the way of our small businesses. Those opposite never knew a business that they wouldn't like to put a picket line out of the front of. It is so disappointing.

What we are all about on this side of the House is making sure that we cut through that red tape, cut through that bureaucracy and make it easy for our small businesses to operate.

Government Members

Government members interjecting—

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Tony Burke

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is the motion be agreed to.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. To that, the Leader of the House has moved that the question be put. The question is that the question be put.

Milton Dick

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Ted O'Brien

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Can I speak now? I shall speak now.

Milton Dick

Is the member seeking to second the motion, and is he seeking to speak to the motion?

Ted O'Brien

I am seeking to speak to the motion. We have in the same week—

Tony Burke

Given that even he wanted to reserve his right, I move:

That the Member be no further heard.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! When I am putting motions before the House, it's highly disorderly and disrespectful. Members need to hear the decision that they need to make. The question before the House is that the member no longer be heard.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following motion being moved forthwith by the Manager of Opposition Business—That this House condemns the government for its cynical action in unilaterally suspending debate on the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and using its numbers to ram this bill through the House in complete violation of the principles of transparency and accountability, which this government promised to bring to the operation of the parliament.

What we have just seen in this House is an outrage in terms of the conduct of the Parliament of Australia and the House of Representatives of Australia. It shows complete cynicism in the way that this government is operating.

Milton Dick

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will pause. The Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Milton Dick

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

Catherine King

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

It has been 20 years since we've talked about having a fuel efficiency standard in this country. We stand alongside Russia as the only advanced economy that does not have fuel a efficiency standard.

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! The minister will pause. The minister is on her feet. She has been speaking for about 15 seconds. That is not the reason for everyone to start screaming and yelling. We're not having that.

The member for Barker. We will listen to the minister. The minister has the call.

Catherine King

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said, we have stood alongside Russia as one of the only advanced economies that does not have a fuel efficiency standard, so consumers in Australia are not getting the benefits of the most efficient vehicles, whether they be petrol vehicles, whether they be hybrid, whether they be electric vehicles or diesel vehicles like the one that I drive. This is an important reform, one that is long overdue, one that used to be supported by those opposite. They know that it is an important measure to make sure that people in regional areas get the fuel savings that are desperately needed. We know in country Australia just how important it is that we are part of the net zero transformation and that is what this bill is very much part of—making sure the people in regional Australia get the benefit of fuel-efficient cars. That is what this bill does. I'm very proud that we are bringing this into the House today and getting it through and getting this done, something the member for Bradfield could only dream about.

Paul Fletcher

I move as an amendment to the motion before the House that the word 'now' be omitted and replaced with the word 'not', so the question would be 'that this bill be not read a third time'. The reason I move that—

Milton Dick

Just pause, I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the question be put.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is the question be put.