Michelle Rowland

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

Jason Clare

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

This bill establishes the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, the ATEC, which is a key recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord. In supporting the amendments that have been made to the bill by the Senate, I acknowledge in particular Senator Faruqi and Senator Pocock in the other place, as well as the member for Curtin and the member for Kooyong in the House of Representatives, for the work that they have done and their engagement in the development of this bill.

The amendments that we will now consider that were made in the Senate will allow the ATEC to initiate its own advice to ministers. They'll strengthen the ATEC's role in providing advice on research and research training. They'll allow the minister to appoint at least one and up to three commissioners on a part-time basis, in addition to the chief commissioner and the First Nations commissioner. They recognise the public good of higher education to Australia and the importance of academic freedom in the objects of the bill. They require the ATEC to establish a committee to provide advice and recommendations to the minister in relation to the Higher Education Standards Framework and ensure that the committee have appropriate expertise in higher education. All of these amendments are sensible, and I commend them to the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Tim Wilson

We're very happy to see that this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026, is being debated, though we're very disappointed that the government has gone through a shambled process, to introduce the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 this morning. They have tried to force it through the parliament before anyone in the entire country has read it. The Leader of the House understands full well the scale of the legislation he is trying to introduce, and he is now trying to ram it through the parliament on the basis that he has no interest in the opposition or anyone outside this parliament scrutinising it. It's a very dangerous precedent.

This is in comparison to the schedules that are being updated in the context of the Competition and Consumer Act which are focused very squarely on making sure penalties are imposed on those who seek to price gouge or harm Australians. It's a straightforward exercise that they have dawdled on every step of the way. The response from the minister has been to not bring the legislation to the House, to bring it to a vote to resolve the matter and to up the penalties, but instead he has allowed time to drift. We are simply asking that that matter, which is simple, straightforward and clear, be resolved. Instead, what the government is now doing is a shambolic process to try and shut down parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability. I'll remind the House this Fair Work legislation was introduced this morning. A copy has not even, as far as I am aware, been made available to the opposition—or, if it has, we certainly haven't had the chance to read it yet. When you're making such substantial changes to industrial relations legislation—and I know the Labor Party works for the trade union movement; it doesn't work for Australians—at some point you actually have to factor Australians into the conversation.

We hope and pray sanity prevails and that the government is proportionate and reasonable. They announced the changes in the ACCC bill well over a week ago. There was a lot of fanfare from the Treasurer. I understand why there was a lot of fanfare from the Treasurer, because they need to be seen to be taking action given the context and time. We have been waiting patiently for the legislation. It finally arrived, it is straightforward and simple, and that's why we have no issue debating it. We do have a problem when the government announces legislation and essentially gives no real insight into its detail—and its detail matters. They have stapled it on to the motion for another bill and forced the debate on it, and the consequence is that it's not just that the opposition who will not have the chance to scrutinise it; the Australian people won't have the chance to scrutinise it. Of course, there will be no chance for those people who understand this legislation to step through it one by one.

But let's deal with the legislation now at hand, particularly the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. There is a simple reality out there in Australia: Australians are desperately trying to find a pathway forward to be able to afford fuel. In this House we have gone through multiple stages of crisis, from complete denial, by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on Monday, that there is a problem to on Thursday declaring a national crisis in this nation's parliament. As a consequence, Australians are now living the full consequences of a fuel crisis that stems from government denial. If they had taken it more seriously with a sense of urgency and prudence, we wouldn't be in a situation where residents in the electorate are now paying somewhere around $2.50 for unleaded and up to $3.50 for diesel. This is a huge problem that Australians are living with now, in the lead-up to Easter and over Saturday with sport, in being able to drive around the electorates of the country. The challenge for Australian households right now is they do not want to see price gouging impacting them.

In the lead-up to the bill being presented before the parliament, I understand that we unintentionally misled the House, because I understand that the Treasurer did offer a briefing to the office, but it was not relayed to me. This is a simple error, and so I want to correct the record.

Jo Briskey

What we have just heard from those opposite is not a genuine attempt to help struggling Australians. It is a blatant political tactic dressed up as concern. The coalition comes into this place claiming to stand for households under pressure and to speak for families doing it tough, but, when it has mattered, where have they been over the last three years? They have consistently voted against every single cost-of-living relief measure that we have put through this parliament. When there is real opportunity to act in the national interest, they always abandon responsibility and reach straight for fear, distortion and political gain.

They want Australians to believe that they're on their side, but Australians can see right through it. Instead, what we see is that the opposition are more interested in the headlines than in outcomes—more interested in exploiting a global crisis than in responding to it responsibly. We see that plainly in the way that they have approached this very debate. There is a well-established convention in this place: government legislation is introduced and then time is provided—typically around a week—before the second reading debate proceeds. That time exists for a reason. It allows the opposition to properly scrutinise legislation, to consult stakeholders and to engage in good-faith consideration of the detail. That is how this parliament is supposed to work. They have rushed into this debate to manufacture outrage and urgency rather than to do the work responsibly. This is just a stunt. It is not about helping Australians; it is about politics, plain and simple.

At a time when there is conflict unfolding in the Middle East, when global energy markets are under pressure and when Australians are, understandably, watching closely, leadership matters. Australians deserve calm, clear, factual information. They do not deserve an opposition trying to manufacture fear for their own political gain.

The Albanese government has introduced this legislation—to up penalties at the petrol pump, as well as making it better, easier and fairer for our trucking industry—for a very clear reason: to help consumers get a fair go and to support our trucking industry. The conflict overseas should never be used as an excuse to profit from Australians. That is why we are putting petrol companies on notice. We will not let big corporations treat Australian consumers like mugs. We are calling on the opposition to support this bill because this is about holding companies to account when they do the wrong thing.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 doubles the maximum penalties for serious breaches of competition and consumer law from $50 million to $100 million per offence for false or misleading conduct or cartel behaviour across the country. We have already acted in this space. We increased penalties fivefold to up to $50 million and strengthened the powers of the ACCC, including extending petrol price monitoring enabling on-the-spot fines. But this legislation goes further. It ensures even bigger penalties for servos and suppliers who are ripping off Australian motorists.

It sits alongside a broader package of action we are taking to address fuel affordability and security. We are boosting fuel supply by releasing 20 per cent of the baseline minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel. We are getting more fuel into the market by temporarily amending fuel standards. We are working with the ACCC to ensure fuel gets to where it is needed, particularly in regional communities, and ramping up fuel price monitoring. And we are engaging with our international partners to strengthen supply chains and fuel security. This is a comprehensive, practical response to a challenging global environment.

The recent conflict in the Middle East has increased uncertainty. Australians are not immune to it. Our job, though, is to respond responsibly, to protect consumers, to ensure that volatility is not used as a cover for misconduct. That's what this legislation does. The government's priorities are clear. We are focused on addressing inflation, lifting productivity and navigating global uncertainty. Ensuring fairer petrol prices, stronger fuel supply chains and fairer deals for our trucking industry is a key part of this work.

These bills are about fairness. They are about accountability and making sure Australians get a fair go. Those opposite can continue their political games, but this government will continue doing what Australians expect: acting in the national interest, protecting consumers and delivering real practical outcomes. I commend the bills to the House.

Dan Tehan

Well, we've seen this morning what this government is all about when it comes to dealing with the national fuel crisis. It is all about politics; it's not about real solutions for the Australian people. We put forward a motion this morning about bringing forward the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. The government has been saying, for over two weeks, that they wanted that bill passed and passed quickly. So we offered true bipartisanship to get that bill on the papers, get it debated and passed through this House today. What did the government do in response? It attached another bill to this motion, a bill which was only introduced into the parliament this morning—that is, they do not want any scrutiny of it whatsoever. It's pure political game scoring, pure political game playing. This is the problem with this government in a national fuel crisis. It's all about the politics. It's not about what's happening out in the community at the moment.

Why did we want to bring on the ACCC bill? It is because we saw the bill introduced—the shadow Treasurer spent all of last night looking at it. It is a very simple bill. It increases fines. We checked it, we double-checked it, and we thought: 'Okay, there's nothing complex about this bill. It's a very simple bill—'

Phillip Thompson

Nothing sneaky in it.

Dan Tehan

'There's nothing sneaky in it. Let's just get it through the parliament.' But the government just cannot operate in a bipartisan way. It always has to play politics. So what does it do? You get the Leader of the House coming in and saying, 'I'm going to attach this very complex bill to it as well.' It was introduced this morning—no briefings, no nothing. Why is it that you want to play politics during a national fuel crisis?

I say this, and I'm sure the people in the gallery will understand this: people in the community at the moment are deeply, deeply concerned with what is happening with this national fuel crisis. They're seeing bombs being dropped. They're seeing energy infrastructure being damaged. They've seen the price of diesel in this country hit $3.20. They've seen the price of petrol hit $2.60. They've seen the government say there's more fuel in the Australian economy than there was before the start of the war, and they just want to know: why, then, isn't the fuel getting to where it needs to get to, and why has the fuel price gone through the roof?

One of the things that's a really important part of this process is that, if people are price gouging, if people are hoarding fuel, then we need the ACCC to be able to look at it. If there are increased penalties to stop those things from happening, that's critically important, because mums and dads then won't be facing choices like, 'Okay, how many Easter eggs do I get?' versus, 'Can I afford that roast lamb to have for Easter Sunday?' This is what we're talking about here.

We made an offer of bipartisanship to say: 'The ACCC bill is very simple. Let's get it through the House into the Senate.' Yet what do we get? Once again, all you want to do is play politics. I ask you to please remember what is happening out there in the community. People are hurting. People are concerned. People are worried. They're worried about the secondary impacts of this fuel crisis. They're wondering about what it's going to mean for when they go into the supermarket—what it's going to mean for vegetable prices and what it's going to mean for meat prices. They worry every time they go and fill the car up: 'That $100 note or that $50 note—how many litres is it now going to get me? It won't get me enough.'

You have the Leader of the House come in here and say: 'Aren't I clever! I'll attach this bill I've introduced today to yours, and we won't let anyone be able to scrutinise it. That's clever, politically, isn't it! Ha-ha! Aren't I great!' Well, I say this to the government: that's not what the Australian people want to see at this time. There's a simple bill which will make a difference. Let's pass that, then let's look at the other bill. Let's have briefings. Let's look at that one properly. This game playing is treating the Australian people with contempt, and you should be ashamed.

Long debate text truncated.

Sophie Scamps

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

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 26 to 28), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This legislation establishes a statutory ban on insurers using the results of genetic tests when offering or pricing life insurance.

While I strongly support this bill, I will be moving two amendments to strengthen it. These amendments respond to concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) of the bill. As currently drafted, these sections allow regulations to override the definitions of key terms, such as 'genetic testing' and 'protected genetic information'. Specifically, the provisions state that the regulations 'have effect despite anything else in this section'. This means that regulations could, in effect, redefine what constitutes protected genetic information, even if that contradicts the definitions set out in the legislation itself. This creates a risk that the scope of protections could be narrowed in the future. In doing so, it dilutes the strength and certainty of the ban. It is not appropriate for regulations to have the power to limit or expand the meaning of terms that are so central to the operation of the legislation.

While the explanatory memorandum suggests that this flexibility is needed to keep pace with advances in medicine, the Australian Human Rights Commission asserts that this is not sufficient justification for such an extensive delegation of power. They argue that substantial changes to the meaning of prescribed terms should only be done through legislative processes and appropriate scrutiny. My proposed amendments remove from sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) the words:

Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.

This will safeguard against any future narrowing of the protections in this bill, whilst still allowing the legislation to evolve appropriately through proper legislative processes.

This bill is the culmination of years of advocacy from medical professionals, researchers and consumer advocates who have consistently called for change. For too long, Australians have faced what has rightly been described as genetic discrimination in life insurance, where the results of a genetic test, often undertaken to better understand or prevent disease, could be used against them. The Australian Medical Association and Monash University's Public Health Genomics unit have cited research that shows that fear of insurance discrimination has deterred many at-risk people from having potentially life-saving genetic testing. The Human Genetics Society of Australasia has highlighted that patients have delayed or declined testing even when there is a strong family history of serious disease. The Public Health Association of Australia has pointed to broader public health implications, noting that reduced uptake of testing limits opportunities for early intervention and prevention. Consumer groups, including the Cancer Council Australia, have emphasised the very real human cost of missing the chance for early detection because they fear being penalised financially. This bill responds directly to those concerns and has been welcomed by the Council of Australian Life Insurers as giving Australians more certainty and empowering them towards better health outcomes. I'd like to acknowledge and thank the Assistant Treasurer for his very constructive engagement with the sector in developing this legislation.

In closing, this bill represents an important step forward for fairness, for public health and for the future of personalised medicine in Australia, and I commend these amendments and the bill to the House.

Daniel Mulino

I begin by acknowledging the contribution of the member for Mackellar on this subject matter over a period of time. I make clear that the government will not be supporting this particular amendment.

The government recognises the importance of this legislation in futureproofing the ban and ensuring it continues to operate effectively, particularly as health and medical technology continue to advance. The purpose of the regulations is to enable the legislation to promptly respond to health and medical advancements which might necessitate modifications to the operation of the ban. The legislation establishing the ban is complex and it is important that it is futureproofed, particularly in the early stages of its implementation. The inclusion of the wording is important to putting it beyond doubt that the regulations can override the primary law, particularly where there is overlap. Without the wording, there could be confusion as to whether the primary law or the regulation takes priority, and it may ultimately limit the ability of the legislation to keep pace with ongoing advances in health and medical technology.

Importantly, any regulations made under the proposed bill would be subject to disallowance, ensuring parliamentary oversight and control over delegated legislation is maintained and in this case, including any impacts on the operation of the primary law. Justification for the inclusion of the wording is in the explanatory memorandum at paragraphs 1.71 to 1.73 for subsection 33E(2) and paragraphs 163 to 165 for subsection 33F(5).

Terry Young

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Monique Ryan

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would".

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would".

The crossbench received this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, five minutes before the government briefed us yesterday morning—five minutes! The government introduced this legislation to the House one hour later. Members of the crossbench sought the call during the second reading to raise our significant concerns about it, but the government denied us the opportunity to speak. This bill was drafted for introduction only 10 days after the war began in Iran. The explanatory memorandum claims that this bill is designed to maintain the integrity of our migration system. Integrity requires proper consultation, transparency and debate, none of which have occurred on this bill. If the government is serious about integrity, it should start by upholding the integrity of this parliament and of our legislative processes.

This bill seeks to introduce significant changes to Australia's migration regime. It empowers the minister to suspend classes of temporary visas held by people offshore through so-called arrival control determinations. This is a sweeping power, one which could affect thousands of people who have already followed our migration rules in good faith and who have already obtained temporary visas in good faith. The amendments I have circulated in my name seek to strengthen the test for making these arrival control determinations to ensure that the minister will satisfy a higher and more proportionate threshold before exercising this extraordinary power. My amendments will ensure that determinations meet both limbs of the test under section 84B, ensuring that there is a reasonable probability that a controlled determination is actually necessary.

There are still significant issues with the drafting of this legislation. I'm concerned that the government's arrival control determinations are not disallowable instruments; they should be. They will not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; they should be. I'm concerned that the minister can re-issue control determinations seemingly indefinitely. That is wrong. There is no upper limit on the number of times a class of temporary visitors might have their visas suspended. That shows contempt to people who have legally obtained temporary visas to visit this country. It means that those offshore who already have a valid visa may be deprived of any possibility of ever entering this country. Just think about the individuals affected by that. And there's no sunset clause on this bill, which would be a very appropriate parliamentary safeguard for legislation which has been rushed through to this extent.

We know what has prompted this legislation. Today there are more than 7,000 Iranians holding visitor visas. Many of them cannot safely return or remain home due to ongoing conflict and instability in their country—conflict and instability to which we are potentially contributing. Under this bill, their temporary visas, which they have obtained validly, often at considerable personal cost, could be suspended overnight. These are people who have already spent years waiting for the chance to visit family or to reunite with their loved ones, yet this temporary visa subclass 449 followed by a temporary humanitarian concern visa subclass 786 approach has removed the dignity and integrity from our migration regime.

Instead, today, thousands of people who are overseas face the prospect that their already granted visas may be rendered unusable overnight, sometimes in circumstances where they don't feel that they can safely return home. If the government is committed to integrity in our migration regime, it should commit to special migration arrangements to those who are affected by this bill.

Julian Hill

I'll just address the new issues raised, because some of it goes to matters which I've addressed on the previous amendment, and we don't want to become the goldfish going round in the bowl, repeating ourselves all morning. I'll just address one procedural point. I wrote down the words; I think I got them right. The member indicated that the crossbench had been 'denied the call' yesterday. I'll just make the point that I don't think that's fair or accurate. There was none of the crossbench in the chamber when the bill was debated. No-one was denied the call; it moved on.

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Julian Hill

Well, I make the point: we could've moved the third reading yesterday, and the bill would've been in the Senate by now. We're here debating it in good faith, but I just need to correct the record: no-one was denied the call. You were not in the chamber.

I do appreciate the genuine concern and intent, and I'll just address the new issue raised. The first amendment would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied of both criteria in b(i) and b(ii). By itself, that would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied both that a noncitizen of the kind specified and an instrument may overstay and, if the event had been occurring when the visa application was made, the visa may not have been granted. But, when coupled with the next two amendments, it would render the provision practically and likely unworkable. Changing 'may' to 'would' in (i) and (ii) would lift the threshold for the test to a definitive view—that is, the noncitizen would overstay and the visa would not have been granted. At the very best you could say that would require a high degree of fact finding and evidence re individuals to be put to the minister. But, in practical terms, as I made the point in the previous amendment commentary, that's a threshold which is rarely if ever passed in any visa grant. Every visa that the Department of Home Affairs grants—literally millions and millions a year for people to come and go in a globalised economy and society—relies on a risk based judgement about the likelihood of someone overstaying.

I'll finish on this point. Despite some of the hyperbole in the media commentary by others outside this chamber, this bill is a sensible step. It's necessary to maintain the integrity of the visa system. It's not a radical proposition. It's core to the entire operation of the migration system that, when someone is granted a temporary visa to Australia and they come to Australia on a temporary visa, the Australian community is confident that they intend a temporary visit. A temporary visa means a temporary visit. In circumstances where it becomes manifestly obvious that large numbers of people would not or may not intend a temporary visit, then the government needs the ability to respond, and currently the minister has the power to respond visa by visa, individually reviewing or cancelling individual visas. The government maintains that this is a sensible, necessary measure and, frankly, it avoids the cancellation en masse of large numbers of visas by simply suspending the ability of the visa holder to enter Australia.

Marion Scrymgour

Member for Clark.

Andrew Wilkie

I'm sure the minister wasn't deliberately misleading the House, but I just would remind the minister that I was present for the debate yesterday.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown

We have to really ask the question, as we're debating this migration amendment bill: who is really benefiting from the war in Iran? It's not you or me or working Australians. It's not the Australian military personnel who will be deployed to the UAE. And it's certainly not the people of Iran. It's indefensible that Australia will help extend this war by sending military personnel and weapons of war to the Middle East, while simultaneously closing the door to anyone left stranded as a result.

While the young women from the Iranian soccer team are safe and will be able to stay in Australia, any other Iranian who currently holds a visa to enter Australia will now be denied access. That is the effect of this bill that is being rammed through this House with barely hours' notice, with the two major parties teaming up for cruelty. These are folks who've already been vetted, and approved to travel to Australia for a range of reasons: for work, for weddings, for funerals. Many of these people are on their way right now, only to be turned back at the airport when they land.

My heart goes out to the Australian military personnel who'll be deployed in the UAE. My heart goes out to every person left stranded, and abandoned, by the Australian government. And my heart goes out to the people of Iran, who are paying the cost of this war. If you thought this war was about protecting the people of Iran, here is the clearest example that that is a lie. Labor is actively working against the safety of people from Iran. The cost of this war is not borne by the people who started it. It's not borne by politicians. It's not borne by corporations, billionaires and weapons manufacturers, who will actually profit from it. It's borne by everyday working people.

Milton Dick

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

No motion text available

Sharon Claydon

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

Allegra Spender

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (after line 19), after section 296-25, insert:

296-26 Exemption — one-off amnesty

If your superannuation balance for the 2026-27 income year exceeds the *large superannuation balance threshold and you are in the accumulation phase, you may make a one-off withdrawal from the account up to the *large superannuation balance threshold.

I want to acknowledge the government's piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, which I support. I particularly want to acknowledge the changes to the legislation which I think have made it a very positive piece of legislation that is appropriately addressing intergenerational inequity at the same time as being, on balance, fair to existing super holders. However, in the current piece of legislation, there are people with high balances who are under 60, so they cannot remove their super from their current accounts. I think that is of concern.

The great challenge of changing super laws is that the money is locked up. You can't touch it unless you're at least over 60 and retired. If you made decisions based on previous conditions in terms of a tax statement and then it is changed materially, I think it is fair to give people the chance to say: 'I wouldn't have made that decision. I'd like to now withdraw these funds.' It doesn't affect a lot of people, but I think, on principle, giving people that choice is important. I do think it's worth noting that the government has doubled the tax rate, and in some cases it has gone from 15 per cent to 40 per cent. That is a material change in the taxation arrangements of superannuation with these high balances. I think that it is appropriate in that case to offer options for removing this.

I know that the government has in previous conversations with the Assistant Treasurer noted that there may be constitutional issues in relation to pensions. My question to the government then would be: were there any other options considered for people who might be in their 30s, their 40s or their 50s who would like to take this money out of super because they no longer see the benefit of having it in that arrangement? Were other options that would have been appropriate considered in the legislation? I think it's not an unreasonable request that, if your money is locked up for perhaps 10 or 20 years and the rules for it substantially change, you have a chance to remove that money and deploy it as you wish elsewhere.

Daniel Mulino

The government opposes the proposed amendment. I'm advised by my department that the amendment would raise significant constitutional issues, as it seeks to introduce a new condition of release before retirement, allowing withdrawals for amounts exceeding the large-balance cap. Such a condition of release would be inconsistent with the constitutional support for the Commonwealth regulation of superannuation, as the condition of release would compel or authorise a trustee to provide benefits unconnected with purposes for superannuation regulation. Importantly, the proposed reforms will maintain concessional tax treatment of superannuation for all individuals but make the concessions more sustainable. These are sensible, important reforms that will mean super tax concessions are better targeted for large balances.

Allegra Spender

Thank you very much for the response from the government on this. Really, my question to the government is: did you consider options—because it isn't an unreasonable request. I support the principle of where the government is going on this, and I support the legislation. But, if you take someone's tax rate from 15 per cent to 40 per cent and they cannot touch that money perhaps for a decade or more, it's not unreasonable to ask: in the legislation, could you have looked for ways to give options, at least, to the people who are affected by this?

Daniel Mulino

I indicate to the House that the government undertook extensive consultation over a long period of time—multiple rounds of consultation with many stakeholders across the industry and experts—and we believe that the design of this bill best reflects all of that consultation in achieving the outlined policy goals.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

The question is that the suspension motion moved by the minister be agreed to.