Milton Dick

The question is that this bill now be read a second time. I'll put the question. Those of that opinion say aye—hang on. The member for Petrie, on a point of clarification.

Luke Howarth

My understanding is: the Treasurer is speaking on omnibus amendment No.    1 next. Is that correct?

Milton Dick

We are dealing with the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill—

Luke Howarth

We have questions after that, if he's speaking to it.

Milton Dick

Well, I'm just stating the question that the bill be now read a second time. If someone wishes to speak on the bill, under the standing orders they're able to do so.

Luke Howarth

Now?

Milton Dick

Yes. For the benefit of the House, we're not in Consideration in Detail for this bill. The clerk has called on the bill, the next item which is listed in the 'blue'. We're finished with order No. 1. Now we're moving to order No. 2. It says, 'Resumption of debate on the second reading.' So we're technically in the second reading stage. If someone wishes in the House to debate the second reading, they're entitled to do that under the standing orders. If everyone's clear, I'll put the question—

If any member wishes to speak regarding the second reading debate, they're entitled to do so. I'll put the question—just to state the question for the House—that this bill be now read a second time. There being no-one indicating they wish to speak to the bill, I'll put the question to the House. The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.

Jim Chalmers

I ask leave of the House to move the third reading immediately.

Leave not granted.

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 that the motion be agreed to.

Zoe Daniel

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9) together as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 3, page 4 (line 24), omit "workforce participation", substitute "the participation of underrepresented groups, including women, in Australia's net zero workforces and economy of the future".

(2) Page 8 (after line 19), after clause 6, insert:

6A Sector assessments — Treasurer initiated

(1) The Treasurer may conduct a sector assessment.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies whether or not a sector assessment has previously been conducted for the sector under this section or under section 6.

(3) Clause 7, page 9 (after line 2), after paragraph (a), insert:

(aa) the sector contributes to reducing Australia's reliance on fossil fuel production, power or energy sources or contributes to reducing global reliance on fossil fuel production, power or energy sources; and

(4) Clause 8, page 9 (line 17), after "sector assessment", insert "conducted under section 6".

(5) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A sector assessment must also:

(a) detail the intended objectives or outcomes of its recommendations for government investment in that sector, and include measurements of success to track a sector's progress towards achieving its objectives or outcomes; and

(b) review whether there are barriers to success that may impede a sector from achieving the objectives or outcomes mentioned in paragraph (d); and

(c) consider what types of Future Made in Australia supports are appropriate for the sector, including the duration of those supports, and how those supports contribute to overcoming the barriers identified in paragraph (e).

(6) Page 10 (after line 22), after clause 8, insert:

8A Conduct of sector assessments — Treasurer initiated

(1) A sector assessment conducted under section 6A must consider:

(a) such of the matters mentioned in paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (e) as the Treasurer considers relevant to the conduct of the assessment; and

(b) the objects of this Act.

(2) The Minister must not:

(a) give directions to the Treasurer in relation to a particular sector assessment; or

(b) seek to influence a particular sector assessment in any other way.

(3) For the purposes of conducting a sector assessment, the Treasurer may:

(a) consult with any Commonwealth entity; or

(b) arrange for any Commonwealth entity to provide assistance or support.

(7) Clause 9, page 10 (line 24), after "sector assessment", insert "under section 6".

(8) Page 11 (after line 9), after clause 9, insert:

9A Reporting on sector assessments — Treasurer initiated

(1) After conducting a sector assessment under section 6A, the Treasurer must prepare a report on the assessment and cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 30 sitting days of that House.

(2) The Treasurer may redact information from the report if the Treasurer is satisfied that:

(a) the information is personal information; or

(b) release of the information would, or could reasonably be expected to:

(i) divulge information that is confidential or commercially sensitive; or

(ii) cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth; or

(iii) cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State or Territory.

9B Delegation by the Treasurer

The Treasurer may, by writing, delegate any or all of the Treasurer's powers under this Act to:

(a) the Secretary of the Treasury Department; or

(b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Treasury Department.

(9) Clause 10, page 13 (line 4), omit "workforce participation", substitute "the meaningful participation of women and underrepresented groups in Australia's net zero workforces".

I'd like to begin by welcoming the government's circulation of amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill in response to concerns raised by myself and other members of the crossbench. The government's amendments represent some improvements to the integrity and robustness of this legislation and ensure it is future proofed from politicisation. First Nations communities must be included in the benefits of our transition to net zero, and a new community development principle is a small step forward to this end. No community development principle explicitly provides for the role of women, though, in Australia's future net zero economy workforce, as my amendment does, which I'll address in a moment. It is critical for government to consult widely if sector assessments are to be a genuine partnership between government and industry. Mandatory consultation is positive, and the government's second amendment, a requirement for just one consultation, goes some way to this but leaves more to be desired. And the government's third amendment, additional annual reporting requirements, is another step but, again, a small one.

Australians must have confidence in their public spending. This means robust financial reporting which details how supports intend to be implemented as well as the duration of those supports. My amendments therefore would address each of the issues addressed by the government in the amendments that they plan to table but go further towards a legislative package with integrity and robustness.

My first amendment proposes a new standalone community development principle to guide the implementation of FMIA supports towards the inclusion of women in our future net zero workforce, which is critical to our net zero transition. I'm concerned that the absence of such a principle to drive the participation of women in our net zero economy will leave 50 per cent of our population uninvolved and unempowered and create yet another high-vis male workforce.

My second amendment would empower the Department of the Treasury itself to initiate sector assessments. One need only look to the Productivity Commission—indeed, in the Treasurer's own portfolio—to a model which possesses an element of independence and protection against ministerial interference. The Productivity Commission, while taking direction for assessments by its minister, can determine areas of the economy to conduct research in, as it deems appropriate. I can't see anything in this bill to prevent a future minister from simply not directing the Department of the Treasury to conduct sector assessments at all should it not be in the political interests of the government of the day.

My third amendment would add an additional eligibility criteria to the net zero transformation stream to ensure that FMIA supports are committed only to projects which would substantially contribute to climate change mitigation and net zero. Projects that receive Commonwealth support must be able to substantiate precisely how they would implement this funding towards what should be the primary goal of this legislation—that is, net zero by 2050.

My fourth amendment addresses the vast gaps of accountability and financial reporting the Treasury and funding recipients would be expected to produce once the funding has been delivered. Treasury would be expected to detail the intended objectives that each of its recommendations in sector assessments would intend to achieve, including how success would be measured, review potential barriers to these objectives and, importantly, specify a duration for these supports. It is vital that the renewable industries which the legislation seeks to build are sustainable and able to be competitive in the market once their Future Made in Australia support has ceased. I commend these amendments to the House.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.

Kate Chaney

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

(1) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 19), at the end of clause, add:

(6) If a sector assessment has previously been conducted for a sector and Future Made in Australia support has been provided in relation to the sector, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, direct the Secretary to conduct a supplementary sector assessment for the sector at least once every 5 years.

(2) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 11, insert:

11A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support

Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:

(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and

(b) the sector assessment report recommends that the support be provided.

I'm supportive of the intention of the Future Made in Australia Bill but, as I said in my second reading speech, in order for this to be successful we need to know that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. The government has set out a framework for future investments, intended to provide reassurance that taxpayer money will be spent sensibly so we can prosper in a global net zero economy, but I have some concerns about whether this framework is strong enough to provide that reassurance, so I'll be supporting all amendments that increase the transparency and integrity of this framework, including the two amendments that I'm proposing here.

I recognise that the government needs to be nimble and respond to opportunities, but when making investment decisions under the Future Made in Australia, it will be investing our hard-earned dollars, so it needs to have a clear and direct mandate. If the government tells Australians that an investment is being made as part of the Future Made in Australia package, that should be shorthand for, 'We have undertaken a rigorous assessment and acted on the best advice available.' If any old investment can be shoehorned into this Future Made in Australia thing, it becomes a slush fund. It's always tempting for the government to have it both ways—to try to provide assurance about a rigorous process but maintain the discretion to ignore the process that it's putting in place. The amendments I'm proposing are designed to limit the government's ability to avoid using the processes that it's going to great pains to design.

One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment.

Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.

My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, we need to be acting on the best and most current information we have about where the global opportunities lie. For example, certain critical minerals have a bright future now, based on promising developments in different battery technologies, but in a few years some may hit brick walls and others flourish. I recognise that good decisions made now on the best available information may not look like good decisions as technology changes.

As the bill is currently drafted, sector assessments are conducted on the direction of the minister within a period defined by the minister, and a report is delivered as required by the minister. The sector assessment then remains in operation without recourse to review. My amendment requires that sector assessments be reviewed every five years to ensure that they continue to be the appropriate areas of investment for Australian taxpayer dollars. While regular assessment may be part of the intention of the government, it's not explicitly required in the bill, which may result in one sector being available for investment long after that's appropriate.

I thank the Treasurer's office for his engagement on these amendments and acknowledge the work that he's done on their own amendments to improve the transparency of this bill. If the government is not going to accept these amendments, I'd appreciate any reassurance that the Treasurer is willing to give about the circumstances in which Future Made in Australia support could be granted to a sector that has not been assessed as needing public investment. If there are no examples of that then I urge the government to adopt these amendments to help taxpayers believe that their money will be well spent to build a resilient future economy.

Milton Dick

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

Monique Ryan

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

(1) Clause 7, page 9 (line 14), at the end of subclause (4), add:

; and (c) the circumstances set out in the rules apply in relation to the sector, such as to justify investment in the sector.

(2) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A sector assessment must also consider each of the following matters:

(a) the impact of any relevant international trade agreements;

(b) current Australian stockpiles and supply of sector goods and resources;

(c) the need for Australia to maintain a diversity of resources.

(3) Clause 8, page 10 (lines 18 to 22), omit subclause (6), substitute:

(6) For the purposes of conducting a sector assessment, the Secretary:

(a) must consult with each of the following:

(i) the Productivity Commission;

(ii) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;

(iii) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;

(iv) Infrastructure Australia;

(v) the Climate Change Authority;

(vi) the Net Zero Economy Authority;

(vii) a person or entity specified in the rules; and

(b) may:

(i) consult with any other Commonwealth entity; or

(ii) arrange for any Commonwealth entity to provide assistance or support.

In this legislation, the Treasurer commits to improving government decision-making on significant public investments to help industry develop the technologies necessary to decarbonise our economy. It's true that we all want to be sure that the government will not sponsor businesses which will never be internationally competitive or will create long-term dependency on public support at a significant cost to the wider economy.

Within the next two decades, the world will stop buying fossil fuels and other countries will enforce carbon border adjustment mechanisms. If we're still then dependent on being a petrostate, we will tank economically. We have clear competitive advantages in our sun, our wind and our critical minerals. We have the ability to become a green energy superpower, exporting decarbonised and value added strategic metals and critical minerals which will simultaneously earn income for Australia and contribute to global decarbonisation.

Before we jump to subsidising new technologies in nascent industries, we have to identify those in which we have a demonstrable current or future competitive advantage and determine how best to support them, while minimising risks to the taxpayer. All industry assistance comes at a cost to those who are not supported. There's always an opportunity cost in subsidising manufacturing and industry. In recent decades, much of our manufacturing has gone offshore. Supply chains are affecting us every day. We have not been effective enough in diversifying supply, stockpiling, forging alternate arrangements and switching technologies to minimise supply chain disruptions. We need to determine where supply chain issues really do, genuinely, require local manufacturing and where other means might be more economical. We should also remember those areas in which we have a genuine sovereign risk and the potential to develop both a domestic surety and a significant export market.

In some ways, this act acts as an umbrella to better coordinate the suite of existing initiatives and funds aimed at the decarbonisation of our economy, but the means by which it will intersect and interact with other entities in this space, whether that be the Productivity Commission, CSIRO, ARENA, the CEFC or others, is not yet clear. To ensure value for money, any government assistance should be based on an independent, transparent and evidence based assessment of the risks and the potential benefits associated with each proposal. There should be tight criteria specifying the outcomes to be achieved and mandated performance monitoring against those specified outcomes. The secretary should be compelled to consult with the relevant authorities and entities undertaking those assessments. Only those entities meeting strict criteria for funding in the national interest should receive public support. We want to streamline assessments, minimise duplication and increase accountability.

Early indicators unfortunately have cast some doubt on the government's preparedness to adhere to these standards under this legislation. The government has already started to allocate funds under the scheme, and, in some cases, there are real questions around the integrity of the decision-making with those grant decisions. So the amendments I've moved today to this bill will increase clarity regarding sectoral assessments and the extent to which they will consider such questions as relevant to international trade agreements, current national stockpiles and resources and the need for diversification of our resources.

There is more to national resilience than spending. We can achieve and address supply chain security in ways other than insourcing. I move here an amendment to ensure that funding under the FMIA framework does not proceed unless all other alternatives have been exhausted. We deserve more transparency over fund allocation. This should include processes which don't include NDAs, closed ministerial diaries and redaction of FOIs, processes which involve open calls for tenders, not lobbying firms and negotiations facilitated by former Labor Party staffers, which don't waste the time, money and effort of other companies and which don't cause a loss of trust in government. The amendments I move here address those concerns, and I commend them to the House.

Milton Dick

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

Zali Steggall

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11) on the sheet revised 15 August 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Preamble, page 2 (lines 16 to 17), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(2) Clause 3, page 4 (line 12), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(3) Clause 3, page 4 (line 33), at the end of the clause, add:

and; (d) to ensure that the National Interest Framework and Future Made in Australia support are consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C and achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

(4) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 1 to 24), omit the clause, substitute:

4 Simplified outline of this Act

This Act establishes the National Interest Framework, a framework to:

The National Interest Framework consists of the net zero transformation stream and the economic and climate change resilience and security stream.

The Minister may, after consulting appropriate Ministers, direct the Secretary to conduct a sector assessment. A sector assessment is an assessment of a sector of the Australian economy conducted for the purpose of analysing the extent to which the sector aligns with the National Interest Framework in one of those streams, as well as opportunities to address barriers to private investment, in the national interest, in relation to the sector.

A person or body deciding whether certain support (known as Future Made in Australia support) should be provided by the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth company must have regard to the community benefit principles. Such support may include a grant, loan, indemnity, guarantee, warranty, investment of money or equity investment.

An applicant for, or recipient of, Future Made in Australia Support must have a Future Made in Australia plan in effect in the circumstances prescribed by rules made under this Act.

(5) Clause 7, pages 8 to 9 (lines 24 to 8), omit "economic resilience and security stream" (wherever occurring), substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security stream".

(6) Clause 7, page 9 (line 11), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(7) Clause 8, page 9 (line 27), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(8) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A sector assessment must also:

(a) include analysis of the contribution by the sector to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and net zero transformation; and

(b) consider the direct emissions impacts of operations at scale by the sector; and

(c) consider the decarbonisation potential in global supply chains.

(9) Clause 10, page 13 (after line 8), after subparagraph (3)(a)(iii), insert:

(iiia) ensuring that First Nations communities can participate in and benefit from Future Made in Australia support; and

(iiib) ensuring that recipients of Future Made in Australia support have the free, prior and informed consent of relevant First Nations communities; and

(10) Clause 10, page 13 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph (3)(a), add:

(vi) promoting the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, including by investing in the lowest emissions intensity operations and technologies available to the sector; and

(vii) considering and incorporating climate adaptation; and

(viii) requiring the use of best available energy efficient and low or zero emission technologies, materials and fuels; and

(11) Page 15 (after line 17), after clause 14, insert:

14A Information that must be made publicly available

(1) The Minister must cause the following information to be made publicly available:

(a) a copy of each annual report given to the Minister under section 14;

(b) details of application processes for Future Made in Australia support;

(c) details of Future Made in Australia support provided.

(2) Information made publicly available under subsection (1) must not include:

(a) confidential commercial information; or

(b) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988); or

(c) information the disclosure of which is prohibited by or under another law of the Commonwealth; or

(d) information that should not be disclosed because it would be against the public interest to do so.

This is important. Whilst I support this bill, it can go further and be much clearer. A future made in Australia is vital for our future. I do support the intent of this legislation, but we must be very clear about the detail. The world is decarbonising, with demand growing for commodities and products that will enable global decarbonisation. Australia, with its abundant natural resources and capacity for innovation, can capitalise on this demand and strengthen our economy through green exports. While the opportunities are great, the opportunity cost is even greater. By failing to seize this opportunity to develop green exports, the world will decarbonise, and demand for our traditional commodities of coal and gas will decline, undermining our economy. I acknowledge that. So we need to be very clear, when we say 'a future made in Australia', just how we are going to deliver the intention and the goal that is stated.

The policy is welcome, but it must be central to and the cornerstone of our economic policy for decades to come. It must be clear what it is aligned to, and that is a net zero world—clean energy, clean resources and clean technology. That is vital. We must play to our natural advantage, support both existing and new players and ensure funding is targeted and fiscally responsible to ensure a return on investment. It must also be focused on decarbonising our own domestic operations and enable global decarbonisation.

The amendments that I moved today focus on ensuring that decarbonisation remains the focus of this Future Made in Australia policy. The government has considered my amendments, and I thank the Treasurer and his team for the discussions that we've had in that respect. I believe part of one of my amendments will be offered up as part of a government amendment, which will address some concerns but not all of the concerns that I've expressed. I understand the government will adopt, in part, one of my amendments, which is in respect to First Nations communities and traditional owners being able to participate in and share the benefits of the net zero transition. This is important, and I welcome this move.

However, I understand they're not going to accept the amendments around making sure emissions reduction is at the core of a future made in Australia. They believe it's already implicit in this bill, but, as we see too often in this place, there is no such thing as being implicit in legislation. It must be explicit. Specifically, the amendments I've moved to the preamble and objects of this act make reference to the Paris Agreement in keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees of warming. We must ensure an investment of the scale of Future Made in Australia is in line with that commitment; it must be linked to that.

The current bill considers decarbonisation and the net zero economy considerations in only one stream, with the second stream referring to economic resilience and security. But you cannot have economic resilience and security unless you are operating in a net zero economy. Therefore, my amendments expressly state that support under this stream is for economic resilience, climate resilience and security within a net zero economy. These amendments will not only safeguard against the Future Made in Australia supporting fossil fuel projects, which absolutely should not happen, but also ensure that any support under the legislation, whether it be for medical manufacturing or defence manufacturing, is given to a project and business aligned with net zero goals.

My amendments also mean that sector assessments must take into account direct emissions and decarbonisation potential, recognising that some projects, such as critical minerals value-adding, may add to Australia's emissions but, ultimately, lead to a substantial net decrease in emissions over their life cycle through the decarbonisation that they will enable—for example, electric vehicles and batteries. We must integrate decarbonisation in every aspect of legislation, especially when we are talking about the substantial spending of public money.

I commend the amendments to the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Stephen Jones

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The government supports these amendments made by the Senate. The Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 is an essential piece of legislation. I am grateful to the Senate for its engagement and to senators for passing the bill last month. The Net Zero Economy Authority will support Australian communities to seize the opportunities of the transition to a net zero economy. It will help ensure we successfully navigate this transformation. It will leave no worker, community or region behind as we build the industries and the jobs of our net zero future. The amendments passed by the Senate are constructive proposals. That is why the government is supportive of these additional amendments. They clarify certain elements of the bill, confirm its intent and address matters raised by stakeholders.

It is important to note that the amendments do not substantially change the intended operation of the Net Zero Economy Authority or the Energy Industry Jobs Plan that it will administer. I will speak to each of the amendments briefly. Amendment to clause 3—the object: this amendment adds reference to communities in the object clause of the bill. The bill, as introduced by the government, already made it clear that, in performing its functions, the Net Zero Economy Authority will prioritise communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy. The authority's operating model will be to work in partnership with and through local institutions and stakeholders. It will bring significant resources and capacity of the Commonwealth into local settings and be driven by local and regional priorities. The government is happy to support this amendment. It highlights that supporting communities will be a central focus of the authority 's work.

Amendment to clause 68—tabling of review of part 5: the amendment will ensure that the review of part 5 of the bill, which relates to the Energy Industry Jobs Plan, will be tabled in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days once provided to the minister. This amendment is minor and responds to a recommendation from the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The government accepts this amendment as a means of supporting transparency and accountability in government operations.

Amendment to clause 74—annual report: this amendment will require the authority to include in its annual report a section reporting on the operation of the act. This includes describing how the operation of the act responds to the needs and circumstances of communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy. The government wants to ensure that the authority operates in accordance with the act to enhance transparency and accountability, and the government supports this amendment

New clause 80(A)—reviews of the operation of the act: this amendment will require the minister to cause an independent review of the operation of the act if a recommendation is made by the board of the authority. The government notes that the Commonwealth government structures policy provides for periodic reviews of new and existing governance bodies at least every 10 years. The government supports statutory bodies being reviewed to ensure they remain fit for purpose. We are happy to go one step further and agree to include a general review provision in this bill. Every report of a review sets out one or more recommendations to the government. A government response to each of the recommendations must be prepared and tabled in both houses of parliament.

Amendments to clause 23, on board composition, would require that one board member have expertise or experience in Indigenous advocacy or community leadership. That would increase the minimum number of board members from six to seven. Indigenous advocacy or community leadership was already a field from which potential board members could be drawn. The government is happy to go one step further and require that one board member has this expertise or experience. The amendments to the board's composition confirm that First Nations people are vital partners in the net zero transformation.

For these reasons I commend the amendments to the House, and for these reasons I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

Mr Thistlethwaite (Labor, Assistant Minister for Immigration) moved: That the debate be adjourned. Question—put. The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Dick, in the Chair)—

For votes: Spender, Labour, Coalition.  

Against votes: Greens.

(Following is the initial question put and the debate that ensued -

Max Chandler-Mather

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Griffith moving the following motion—That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the recent opinion of the International Court of Justice that the State of Israel's occupation is illegal and that Israel is responsible for apartheid;

(b) the widespread allegations of torture and sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners in Israel's prisons and detention centres, including from the UN Human Rights Office and B'Tselem;

(c) statements from Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Likud Member of the Knesset Hanoch Milwidsky that support the legitimacy of the rape of Palestinian prisoners;

(d) the recent statement by Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich that the starving of 2 million Palestinians 'might be justified and moral';

(e) Israel's systematic bombing of water and sewerage treatment facilities has reduced water supply in Gaza to about a quarter of what it was pre the war, and has contributed to the re-emergence of polio in Gaza, which causes paralysis and death in children; and

(f) the continuing genocide and war crimes in Gaza including the widescale deaths and injuries caused by the State of Israel's bombings and other attacks; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) sanction the State of Israel and members of the extremist Netanyahu Government, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich; and

(b) end two way arms trade with the State of Israel including the F35 parts manufactured in Australia and used in the State of Israel's fighter jets

How many atrocities does Israel have to commit before this government will take action? How many children does it have to kill before it will place sanctions on the State of Israel?How many schools does Israel have to bomb before Labor will end two-way arms trade with Israel and stop the export of F-35 parts that are in Israeli jets currently committing atrocities in Gaza?

We know now that the official death toll in Gaza is over 40,000. Over 70 per cent of those are women and children. We hear these numbers a lot, but what we don't often do is think about the human consequences and stories behind these deaths and the horrific nature of them. As I read these out, I want people to think, when these atrocities are being committed at a deliberate and systematic scale—a genocide is being carried out in Gaza right now—why is it, then, that the Australian government and the Labor Party won't end two-way arms trade with Israel or, just like they sanctioned Russia, sanction the State of Israel?

Let's talk about Muhammed Bhar, one of the children killed by Israel. Muhammed Bhar had Down syndrome and autism. He was attacked by a combat dog when Israeli soldiers raided his family's home in Gaza. His mother said: 'Muhammed was pleading with the dog while it was attacking him. He said, "Enough, habibi, enough."' Habibi translates as 'my love'. The soldiers put Muhammed in another room and forced his family to leave their home without him. When they returned a few days later, he was dead.

Things like this are happening every day in Gaza right now. It's every day, at a systematic scale, and it has been admitted by Israeli ministers that this is their goal. What does this government do? Nothing. How many horrors have to occur? Is there a number that this government is looking at? Is there a number of kids that have to be murdered by the State of Israel before this government will take action?

Let's talk about another one. What about three-year-old Emad Abu al-Qura? He was killed outside his home when he went to buy fruit with his cousin. He was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper. Has cousin was also shot and killed. In fact, what we know is that, since October 7, 115 infants, newborn babies, have been born and then killed and 564 schools have been either partially damaged or destroyed as Israel has deliberately targeted them and bombed them.

What will it take? The gall of this government is that, whenever they face criticism about their complicity in this genocide going on in Gaza right now, they talk about social cohesion. You know, people have eyes. They see what's going on in Gaza. The reason that people are upset is that they see stories like this and then they look to their government to show some moral leadership, to show some international leadership. When they've seen this government take out over 1,000 autonomous sanctions against Russia for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, they then look and expect them to do something: 'Well, surely any government with any sense of morality, any sense of justice or any sense of humanity would turn around and do the same thing to the State of Israel and sanction the State of Israel.' But apparently not.

The reality is this—this is what we know: every time that the State of Israel commits an atrocity like that or carries out a bombing of a school or a hospital and then they look around the world to countries like Australia, who does nothing, Israel is emboldened to keep acting. We have a situation right now where polio has re-emerged in Gaza. Just think about the devastating impacts that will have on Gazan children. Do their lives not matter? There are a lot of Australians right now who think that they should be proud of this country. One way of being proud of this country is to have a government that says, 'No more,' when we see atrocities like this. We say, 'No more,' and we take action. Muhammed Bhar's last hours were spent scared and alone, bleeding and dying to death—as he couldn't even die in the arms of his family—and he is just one of the over 15,000 Palestinian children who have been murdered by Israel.

What is this about? Genuinely, why is it that the Australian government cannot take a single action against the State of Israel? Why is it that this Australian government, which has signed a $917 million defence contract with Elbit Systems—an Israeli weapons company that has been blacklisted by other countries around the world for war crimes committed with their weapons in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—can't even cancel that contract? Why is that they can't follow the Netherlands and ban the export of F-35 parts going into Israeli jets? Why is it that they can't take sanctions?

Is it, perhaps, their slavish loyalty to the United States? When will this country and its government learn, whether it be Labor or Liberal? By the way, the Liberal Party never reckoned with their disastrous invasion of Iraq. What is it? Iraq, Afghanistan—how many times do we have to follow slavishly into a war backed by the United States? Look at the consequences: the millions dead. The reality is that it makes the world less safe. Australia backed the US invasion of Afghanistan, apparently to get rid of the Taliban. What did we end up with, after 20 years, hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of deaths? The Taliban. They're still there. What happened when Australia backed the invasion of Iraq, which some estimates said led to a million dead? What did we end up with? ISIS. Good on you, guys! It worked out real well! Great stuff! There is a lack of seriousness and a lack of intellectual capacity on either side of this House to deal with the consequences of a foreign policy that this country backs and that leads to the deaths and suffering of millions of people. What will it take?

The message that a lot of people hear from this government—when you compare what's going on and the sanctions they've imposed against Russia and the sanctions that they refuse to impose against the State of Israel— is that somehow Palestinian lives matter less. You know what? That view is not representative of the people in the community, because people in the community and across Australia have a different view. They see when our country has a responsibility—a responsibility created by the fact that this country is engaged in a two-way arms trade with the State of Israel as it carries out a genocide, and a responsibility that says this is a country that's part of the international community. That responsibility warrants actions, and, where this government does not take actions, that creates a complicity in the actions that the State of Israel is carrying out. At the end of the day—

Julian Leeser

What about the hostages?

Phillip Thompson

Shut up.

Max Chandler-Mather

I'll take those objections, because of the lack of humanity in this House. What about Muhammed Bhar, who had autism and Down syndrome, left to die—not even with his family? Oh, great! You talk about the deaths on October 7, which the Greens have condemned and which are disgraceful, but that does not justify the deaths of 15,000 children. That does not justify the deaths of men, women and children. Unnecessary deaths can only create less— (Time expired)

Steve Georganas

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Adam Bandt

I second this motion. Action—that's what people want from their government. When we witness a genocide, starvation, destruction of people's lives, the re-emergence of polio and a court saying that the State of Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, people want their own government to take action. Enough of the hand-wringing words. Enough of the pleas and the supposed red lines that the extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu then crosses every time without consequences. People want action.

There are things that this government could do to put pressure on the extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the slaughter and the genocide, but Labor is refusing to do them. Governments were more than willing, with the support of everyone across the parliament, to put sanctions on Russia when it committed its illegal invasion. Since the parliament was here last time—when everyone else, certainly on the Labor side and on the Liberal side, voted against the recognition of Palestine, despite it being something that Labor said they would make a priority—we have had international courts say the crime of apartheid is being committed; we have seen ministers in the government say that the starvation of two million Palestinians might be justified and moral; and we have seen the re-emergence of polio. Not only are there the tens of thousands of deaths but we now have the re-emergence of polio. We are on the verge of epidemics that will see a whole generation of children being forced to live a life that we as humanity thought we had left behind us. They are now going to be facing diseases that we know are preventable but that we are now seeing reappear. Not only are we seeing that; we are seeing kids die because they can't get enough to eat or drink.

This is happening on a daily basis, and people want their governments to take action. We have been seeing voices right across the spectrum since we were last here. I want to pay tribute to those brave voices, including those brave and heroic voices from the Jewish community, who are saying this extremist Netanyahu government is committing war crimes. As they lend their voices not only to everyone across this parliament who is calling for the release of hostages but to those who are calling on this government to recognise that the extremist Netanyahu government has crossed lines time and time again, they are saying, like millions of people across this country, that it is the time for the government to take action.

It has been said that the words are too strong when the Greens say that Labor is complicit in genocide. Well, no, because these international treaties that we have signed up to require governments to stand up and take action when they see war crimes being committed. There is no supranational police force that is going to step in and stop governments like the extremist Netanyahu government from committing war crimes. These very treaties, like the treaty against committing genocide that Australia has signed up to, say that governments like this Labor government are required to take action when they see war crimes being committed by others, and there's a reason for that. It's because if Labor keeps letting Netanyahu's extremist government commit these war crimes then more and more will be committed. These treaties and conventions that we sign up to impose obligations on this government to take action when it sees war crimes being committed or when it sees the crime of apartheid being committed, and at the moment, when Labor does nothing, Labor is complicit. Labor is not meeting its legal or moral obligations under these treaties. It could also very simply say, as they have in the Netherlands, that it is wrong that Australian-made parts are being used in these F-35 fighter jets to drop bombs, and it won't even do that either.

So this is a chance for every member of parliament who voted against recognising Palestine before to come in now and vote to put some pressure to stop the genocide. (Time expired)

Andrew Wallace

I rise to speak strongly against this motion. Where were the Greens on October 7? Where were the Greens when 1,200 innocent Israelis were killed? Have any members of the Greens been to Israel? Have they been to see the sights of the atrocities? Have they bothered to watch the 43-minute video? You don't have to go to Israel. Have you seen the 43-minute video? If you haven't, I encourage you to watch the 43-minute video.

Steve Georganas

I ask members to put their thoughts through the chair.

Long debate text truncated.)