Anthony Albanese

I move:

That the House of Representatives:

(1) reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of Hamas' terror attacks on Israel which took place on 7 October 2023, in which more than 1,200 innocent Israelis were killed, the largest loss of Jewish life on any single day since the Holocaust;

(2) recognises that hundreds more innocent people were subjected to brutality and violence on that day;

(3) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all the remaining hostages;

(4) condemns the murder of hostages and the inhumane conditions and violence, including sexual violence, that hostages have experienced;

(5) mourns with all impacted by these heinous acts;

(6) condemns antisemitism in all its forms and stands with Jewish Australians who have felt the cold shadows of antisemitism reaching into the present day;

(7) reiterates Australia's consistent positions to call for the protection of civilian lives and adherence to international law;

(8) mourns the death of all innocent civilians, recognising the number of Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza and the catastrophic humanitarian situation;

(9) supports ongoing international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza and Lebanon;

(10) calls for Iran to cease its destabilising actions including through terrorist organisations, the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas, condemns Iran's attacks on Israel and recognises Israel's right to defend itself against these attacks;

(11) stresses the need to break the cycle of violence and supports international efforts to deescalate for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Lebanon and for lasting peace and security for Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and all people in the region;

(12) affirms its support for a two-state solution, a Palestinian State alongside Israel, so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensuring a just and enduring peace;

(13) recognises the conflict is deeply distressing for many in the Australian community;

(14) condemns all acts of hatred, division or violence, affirming that they have no place in Australia; and

(15) reaffirms:

(a) that symbols of terror and discord are unwelcome in Australia and undermine our nation's peace and security;

(b) the undermining social cohesion and unity by stoking fear and division risks Australia's domestic security; and

(c) the responsibility of each Australian to safeguard the harmony and unity that define our diverse society, especially in times of adversity.

Yesterday, on the first anniversary of the October 7 attacks in Israel, we paused to reflect on the horrific terrorist atrocities that reverberated across the world. As we did last October, this parliament comes together again to unequivocally condemn Hamas's actions on that day. On October 7 Hamas sought only to kill and to terrify. They perpetrated their crimes without mercy and without discrimination. Men, women and children were subjected to acts of degradation and humiliation that, a year on, remain beyond comprehension, yet Hamas made this waking nightmare a reality. They chose a holy day on the Jewish calendar to target young Israelis at a music festival, to hunt down men, women and children in their homes and to prey on families—on children and on parents trying to protect their children in what often proved to be their desperate final act.

A year on from that day, when death emerged out of the sunshine, we reflect on all that happened and all the devastation that has followed. We think of the brutality and the cruelty that was inflicted on so many, with such cold calculation. We think of all whose lives and futures were stolen from them that day, as they tried to save themselves and their loved ones, and of all who have had them stolen since. We think of those whose lives remain suspended in the fear and isolation of captivity. And we think of those whose own lives and hearts are so intimately connected with the hostages who were kidnapped that day through the bonds of either blood or the embrace of friendship and community. This has been a year of pain, of loss and of grief.

Last night, I attended the vigil in Moorabbin, Melbourne, where I had the sombre privilege of meeting with a relative of Galit Carbone, the Australian woman who was among those killed on that fateful day. I expressed my condolences and those of our nation. We also heard firsthand the experience of those with relatives and friends who were killed by Hamas on that day, who were killed after being taken hostage or who remain hostages. For so many, this past year must have felt like a cruel eternity. For the friends and families I spoke to prior to the event last night, in their torment of not knowing the fate of a loved one who's been taken hostage or, indeed, having the terrible truth confirmed, October 7 will always be a day of pain.

As we mourn and reflect we also reaffirm a fundamental principle of our shared humanity: that every innocent life matters—every Israeli, every Palestinian, every Lebanese—every single innocent life. It is the terrorists who close their eyes to that powerful, simple truth. It is the terrorists of Hamas who are not only enemies of Israel; they are an enemy of the Palestinian people as well. The number of civilians who have lost their lives over the past year is a tragedy of horrific proportions. An estimated 40,000 Palestinians have been killed. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is devastating.

Our government has consistently and repeatedly called for a ceasefire, for the release of all hostages and for the protection of all civilians. We remain committed to a two-state solution as the path to an enduring peace: two states, Israel and Palestine, living peacefully side by side with prosperity and security for their people—a position that has been bipartisan in this parliament for a long period of time. There can be no possibility of a just future without that. Let's be very clear. Australia's position is consistent with that of other democratic countries. I've issued multiple statements with the Prime Ministers of Canada and New Zealand. We know that it is only through diplomatic efforts that this cycle of conflict and bloodshed can be broken. Escalation denies diplomacy any chance of working. On 26 September Australia joined with 11 other nations, including the US, Canada, France, Germany, the UK and Japan, to call for de-escalation. We agree with every word in the G7 statement of this week:

A dangerous cycle of attacks and retaliation risks fuelling uncontrollable escalation in the Middle East, which is in no one's interest. Therefore, we call on all regional players to act responsibly and with restraint. We encourage all parties to engage constructively to de-escalate the current tensions. International humanitarian law must be respected.

…   …   …

We also reiterate our call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the unconditional release of all hostages, a significant and sustained increase in the flow of humanitarian assistance, and an end to the conflict. We fully endorse the efforts by the US, Qatar and Egypt to reach such a comprehensive deal, in line with United Nations Security Council resolution 2735. The situation in Gaza is catastrophic, and tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost. We reiterate the absolute need for the civilian population to be protected and that there must be full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access, as a matter of absolute priority.

In his statement, marking the first anniversary of October 7, President Joe Biden said this:

We will not stop working to achieve a ceasefire deal in Gaza that brings the hostages home, allows for a surge in humanitarian aid to ease the suffering on the ground, assures Israel's security, and ends this war. Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve to live in security, dignity and peace. We also continue to believe that a diplomatic solution across the Israel-Lebanon border region is the only path to restore lasting calm and allow residents on both sides to return safely to their homes.

A year on from October 7, Israelis and people across the world are mourning those who were robbed of their lives and futures and waiting anxiously for news of the hostages who remain in captivity. Palestinians are mourning the lives taken from them in the continuing aftermath. So much has been lost; so many loved ones buried. We join all of them in their grief. Tragically, we are seeing the situation worsening. Since late last year, we and others have been expressing this concern about the real risk of the conflict spreading. We are now seeing that come to pass. We unequivocally condemn the actions of Iran and Hezbollah. Iran must cease its destabilising actions, including through its terrorist proxies. Amid their attacks on Israel, Australia steadfastly maintains support for Israel's right to defend itself. We always have, and we always will. We repeat our call for all sides to observe international law.

It is important to recognise that the loss and grief of this past year have been deeply felt here in Australia. Sorrow knows no boundaries. It recognises no differences. Since the atrocities of October 7, Jewish Australians have felt the shadows of the past creeping into the present. We condemn the poison of antisemitism in whatever form it takes. This is a pain the Jewish people should never have had to endure again. The Holocaust is not softened by the passing of time. It doesn't recede into history. It does not offer one the slender comfort of distance.

Our Jewish-Australian community is made up of Holocaust survivors and their children and grandchildren, including, of course, our Attorney-General here in this parliament. The branches of their family trees are heavy with loss and suffering and with acts of survival in the face of overwhelming odds. It is shocking and wrong that in 2024 Jewish people are having to draw on their courage and their resilience again. I want to repeat the message that I have given to all Jewish Australians since the outset: You are not alone; your fellow Australians stand with you. Our social cohesion has been built over the course of generations by people of all backgrounds and from every faith and tradition. All of us take pride in it and all of us must work together to protect it.

This parliament gives all of us a national platform and a national duty to send a message to every Australian: You have the right to be proud of you are; the right to feel safe in your community, whether you wear a yarmulke or a hijab; the right to feel free to live the truth of your faith; and the mere act of your children walking freely to school should just be a regular part of daily life, unremarkable in its happiness. Every time parliament rises and we return to our electorates across this great continent of ours, we can travel along the streets and see synagogues. We can see mosques. We can see churches and temples. As a country and as a people, we're big enough to contain them all, and we're enriched by them all.

Each and every one of us has a responsibility to prevent conflict in the Middle East from being used as a platform for prejudice at home. I want to be clear to anyone who thinks about taking a Hamas or Hezbollah flag to a protest: these symbols are not acceptable. They are symbols of terror. They are illegal, and they will not be tolerated here. Hamas and Hezbollah serve no cause but terror. They have shown themselves to be the enemy of the very people they purport to represent, and we unequivocally condemn any indication of support for such organisations.

Today, as we remember those who were lost, we stand with all those who wait. We stand with all those who endure loss. We stand with all those who endure hope. Let us stand together as a nation and as a parliament in our shared determination to preserve the harmony that makes this the greatest country in the world, knowing in our shared commitment to a just and lasting peace that the truest act of strength is to protect the innocent. That is the truth we must hold on to—the truth of a shared humanity, the hope that peace is possible and the belief that it belongs to all people. To quote the great Dr Martin Luther King:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I commend the resolution to the House.

Honourable members: Hear, hear.

And I table this statement from President Joe Biden marking one year since the 7 October attack and the statement from the G7 leaders on recent developments in the Middle East.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

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

Andrew Wilkie

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

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent.

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:

(a) be made in writing; and

(b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and

(c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision.

I support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. It is long overdue and sorely needed. The bill of course responds in part to the recommendations of the Set the standard report, which in turn was the product of the 2021 Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission and headed by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins.

As many in the community would remember, the Jenkins review was established with the support of both major parties and the crossbench in March 2021 following a litany of reports about the toxic, unsafe workplace culture in Parliament House, including most notably the allegation by former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins that she was raped in a ministerial office in 2019. As Commissioner Jenkins noted:

The Commonwealth Parliament sits at the heart of Australia's representative democracy. As one of the country's most prominent workplaces, it should serve as a model for others and be something Australians look to with pride.

In other words, it's imperative that the people who work in this building are safe and respected and feel they can speak up against bad behaviour. Regrettably, however, this has not been the case, which is why the review found that too often this workplace didn't provide a safe environment for many, largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and a lack of accountability. Indeed, the actions of some people in this building over many years has made a mockery of this institution and left the community with little trust in what goes on in here. This bill can help address the dreadful situation, because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the IPSC, promises to operate as a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to handle complaints and make findings about misconduct and to make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct.

I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.

I am on the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and I have great respect for my colleagues there. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's a highly respected committee with a reputation for being multipartisan, collegiate and collaborative. However, it's not a given that this collegiality will always exist, nor that the public will always have confidence that it exists, and if trust breaks down, especially between the committee and the community, and the idea takes hold that poor behaviour is not being dealt with by an independent expert body then at best we've failed the so-called pub test and at worst allowed this place to drift into lawless mediocrity.

That's why my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when reporting its decision. Only then could everyone, including the community, be confident that complaints investigation and processing within this workplace are fair, independent, confidential and transparent, as recommended by the Set the standard report.

Importantly, my amendments respond to concerns which have been raised by a number of organisations focused on women's safety, on transparency and on good governance, including Fair Agenda, Transparency International Australia and the Australian Democracy Network. On that note, I thank Fair Agenda in particular for their engagement on this issue and I commend the amendments to the House.

Kylea Tink

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Clark, because I want to take a moment to stop and reflect on where we have gotten to and where we could go further. In the course of the last 24 hours, I've heard a number of people speak about the revolutionary nature of this legislation. I want to echo that, in that this is an incredibly important piece of reform. It's also a piece of reform that has been a long time coming. I would like to preface that by saying I also believe that, if this reform weren't delivered in this 47th parliament, there would be mass outrage across the Australian community. If the 2022 election told us nothing else, it told us that Australians are tired of seeing politicians throw abuse at each other across this chamber and treat each other with little to no respect.

I want to thank the member for moving this consideration in detail amendment because ultimately I think it is infinitely sensible and it finds a very nice middle ground between what the Set the standard report actually recommended, what the joint parliamentary committee that looked into this recommended and where we've actually ended up with this legislation. At the heart of the recommendations from both the Set the standard report and the committee inquiry was the fact that whatever we establish from here and now must be transparent and must hold us to a higher level of accountability then we have had in this place to date.

Unfortunately, what we see in this legislation at the moment—and I can only assume it's a political compromise—is that, in the case where the breach of behaviour is most egregious in its nature, where Australians arguably will have the most interest in what happens in the face of that incident, that decision is going to be taken out of the hands of the independent committee and handed over to the privileges committee, and at the moment there is no responsibility for the privileges committee to then articulate how they came to their decision. Quite frankly, the privileges committee will not have to take on board what the independent authority offers to them, and, in fact, in a worst-case scenario we may see quite an egregious event be referred from the IPSC to the privileges committee and the privileges committee may choose to take no action whatsoever.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, and, while I don't support gambling, this is a bet I would take any day: when it hits the public that that's what this place has done, people will see that as politicians looking out for themselves. As the member so eloquently just said, it fails the pub test. Australians told us they want politics done differently. They want it done with transparency, they want it done with integrity and they want it done with accountability. If we cannot have the courage to say that we are prepared to meet them in that space, then I think our parliament still has a lot of maturing to go.

Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge—and I'm going to thank the minister for responding—there's also been a lot of talk about the fact that this legislation would not even have eventuated 11 years ago. I accept that; I get that. But, just because it wouldn't have happened 11 years ago, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it in today as strong as it can be. We are not the first parliament to make a move in this direction. The UK parliament went this way in 2015, and they have done it far more bravely than we have in this legislation, and they are the home of the Westminster system, which we were born from. I thank the member for moving this amendment. I commend it to the House. I really do appeal to the government today, who I know believe in this and have fought hard to get us to this point with this legislation: take us all the way, not just to the threshold.

Helen Haines

I rise today in support of the member for Clark and his most excellent amendment to this very important, critical legislation. We are at a moment in our democracy that the people of Australia have been waiting a long time for—that is, to take responsibility for our actions. We come to this place with the hopes of so many people on our shoulders. We come to this place as potential—not actual but potential—role models for young people who may wish to aspire to public life, and we have let them down on so many occasions. That has been going on for a very long time.

In my second reading speech yesterday I spoke to the long history of getting to this point in this parliament to implement this most important recommendation of the Jenkins report. What I'm seeing now, though, is that we are falling not at the first hurdle but at the last hurdle. I really commend the member for Clark for bringing forward an elegant, simple remedy to this last problem. This last issue is about ensuring that the commission that we're about to legislate for can actually have the repercussions of serious misconduct acted upon. What the member for Clark has done for us is lay out how we can do this and still maintain the primacy of the parliament. The member for Clark has highlighted that the privileges committee is a most respected committee—well, to be frank, if a committee is not respected in this place, that's a problem. The fact that we have to call out that some committees are more respected than others is actually a problem and speaks to the issue that we're trying to remedy. Notwithstanding, the member for Clark is a member of that committee and can speak with authority on this. But what we could achieve here through this amendment is to ensure that that most respected committee still has all its agency but also has the accountability that is missing right now in this legislation—that is, accountability to the transparency of a decision.

The people of Australia are so tired of us making up our own rules and then hiding away when the rules are broken and making sure that nobody sees anything here. This amendment does not take away any power from the privileges committee. In fact, it embeds its power. What it adds is its responsibility to the parliament and the people of Australia. Should serious findings be made by the commission and sanctions put forward, those recommendations need to come to the privileges committee. What is the point of having an independent expert committee if their recommendations hold no water? It really does beggar belief for what it is we're trying to do here. I really commend the member for Clark for putting forward a way we can manage this.

Sure, the privileges committee may take a different view to the commission. Fine: explain the reasoning, table the reasoning in the parliament and make it public. Because, if you are a respected member of any committee you should have no shame in what it is that you discuss and decide on your committee—no shame whatsoever. In fact, you should be proud of your reasoning and you should be able to lay that out in a way that explains to Australia why you have arrived at that decision. Where is the problem with that?

I heard a very respected journalist give the Speaker's Lecture in this place only a couple of days ago. The take-home message for me was that Australia wants to have parliamentarians with a ticker. I say to every member of this House—whether you sit on the opposition, with the government or, indeed, on the crossbench: have a ticker, support this amendment, and restore transparency and accountability to this House.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

The question now before the House is this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House now is that the amendment moved by the Treasurer be agreed to.

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.