Milton Dick

The question before the House is that amendments (2) and (4) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

Ted O'Brien

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following motion being moved by the member for Fairfax forthwith:

That this House reaffirms the importance of a proper and comprehensive consideration by the House of Representatives of legislation dealing with matters of importance to Australians.

As every single member opposite knows, based on an act of parliamentary trickery the Australian people today have been given another tax from the Labor Party—this is the family car tax—without parliamentary procedure. This is the new modus operandi of the Australian government, a preparedness to tax the Australian people, introduce legislation into this parliament and refuse to have any scrutiny placed over it.

This week was the week that the government presented a budget, framing that budget as apparently trying to provide cost-of-living relief. But what we have today, in this very week itself, is a new tax legislated by this government. In the same week where the government says they want to make life easier for hardworking families of this country, they slap on a new tax. They do so under the guise of a vehicle efficiency standard, but everybody in this country knows the truth: it is a new family car tax.

And here's the worst part of it: the government itself knows the truth. That is why we have seen today a shutdown of the parliamentary debate on this piece of legislation. The Prime Minister knows the truth. The minister responsible, the minister for transport, knows the truth. This minister who sits across from me right now, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, he knows the truth. I've been to car dealerships in his electorate. They tell me the punitive tax will be paid ultimately by consumers, but will this government have the debate in this parliament? No; it refuses.

This goes to the heart of the lack of integrity and the cowardice of this government. Why would you not have the strength of character to stand in this parliament and put forward your case? If you want to tax the Australian people for buying the cars they like, the cars they need, then why would you not stand in this parliament and have the debate? Why are you so scared of transparency? Why are you so frightened of having a debate? Why will you not be honest with the Australian people about the impact of this legislation when they purchase vehicles? Silence. Radio silence. This is the problem we have seen: radio silence from the government when it comes to all parts of this legislation.

Oh, now the minister would like to pipe up! I'm happy to take any interjection, Minister. What is your interjection? There is silence because you know you've shut down debate on this topic today. It's not unlike what the minister across the table did on introducing a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030—a lack of transparency. To this day we still have nothing from the government on economic modelling of the impact on the Australian people—none. And as a minister leaves this chamber, will he go back to the office and say to his staff, 'Let's release that modelling of the impact on the Australian people of my emissions reduction target'? No. The same Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who is leaving the chamber right now, was the very one who put out the target that 89 per cent sales of vehicles in Australia by 2030 had to be electric vehicles, had to be EVs. Is that being achieved? No. The government's own department says it's only going to come in at 27 per cent.

So what has happened here? Emission targets set at 43 per cent—they will not be achieved. EV sales targets set at 89 per cent—they will not be achieved. The government gets desperate. Its objective is to achieve its objective no matter what the impact is, no matter what the cost is for the Australian people. And as part of that plan it introduces a new family car tax, the original design of which was estimating an increase in the purchase price of vehicles of up to $25,000 for Land Cruisers. We are looking at the prices of Australia's most popular vehicles going up.

This government will continue to introduce legislation that will harm the Australian people. We have seen again this week through the budget that this government's approach is to not be transparent, to not show modelling, to not put consumers at the centre but to put itself as the centre. This is big-government Labor approach. There are winners and there are losers, and we've seen again this week the government's 'made in Australia' policy: it is picking winners.

But if you pick winners then, by default, you are also picking losers. The question Australians have to ask themselves, after two years of this government, is: have you been made a winner or have you been made a loser? Australians aren't mugs. They know, under this government, on which side of the ledger they fall. Is this government trying to make them a winner, or a loser? As Australians, do you feel richer, or poorer, after the last two years? Australians: are your lives now easier than they were two years ago, or harder? Australians: is it harder to make ends meet, or is it easier?

We have a government that is choosing winners and losers. The Australian people, by and large, are the losers here. Even with the family car tax that that the government has just rushed through—closed down any debate—it's the everyday Australian family that will lose. They'll be the ones who'll be paying the higher price for vehicles. It'll be the most vulnerable Australians who'll be hurt the most. It'll be Australians living in regional communities, having to travel vast distances, who'll be hurt the most.

Now, I accept that different sides of parliament can have different philosophical views about certain areas of public policy. But no matter one's view, you should at least have the courage of your convictions to come to the dispatch box in parliament and prosecute the case, to have your policy open for scrutiny and review. But this government hasn't done that, and we see the Australian people hurt as a result. For all the waffle we've heard this week from the government about trying to look after Australian consumers, at the first opportunity they had to legislate something to assist everyday families they instead legislated a new tax.

People can judge others by what they say or what they do. I put that this government must be judged by what they do. We on this side of the House stood ready to engage with the government in good faith on a vehicle efficiency standard. They refused to engage. We put principles on the table—genuine emissions reduction, affordability, choice. Every one of those principles were ignored. The Australian people have been ignored. The Australian people are paying the price.

So, as Australians move forward and they keep hearing all the talk from this government about cost of living, they can be sure of one thing. This government is refusing to release any economic modelling that demonstrates the impact on consumers of this family car tax. Secondly, they can be sure that this government has refused to engage in good faith across the parliamentary aisle to ensure that a proper efficiency standard has been put in place. Thirdly, they can be sure that this government has rushed through this parliament—without debate, without scrutiny—a new family car tax which will be paid by everyday Australians, while this government laughs and carries on. That's the calibre of the Albanese Labor government.

Mike Freelander

Is the motion seconded?

Michael McCormack

I second the motion. We know that standing and sessional orders do need to be suspended because, as the member for Fairfax states, this House has to reaffirm the importance of a proper and comprehensive consideration by this House—the people's house, the house of what used to be democracy—of legislation dealing with matters of importance to Australians. If ever there were a matter of importance to Australians, it is this matter.

The Labor government has form when it comes to gagging debate. Indeed, last year, for the first time since I was elected in 2010, they gagged the appropriation bills of all bills to gag. Just recently, in the last sitting week of the Senate, they gagged our senators from speaking about the digital identity bill in the upper house. Now here today, they have gagged the fuel efficiency standard debates. There was a long list of speakers who wanted to speak about the importance of this legislation for and on behalf of their constituents. Many of those members are regional members who will hurt the most from this tax on family cars and utes.

But those opposite don't care about families and farmers. They do not care about families, which are in Struggle Street at the moment. They do not need another Labor tax to impose upon their livelihoods, upon their day-to-day budgets. I appreciate that the member for Rankin stood at that dispatch box the other night and delivered his budget speech, but the important budgets that are being done are around the family living room tables. They are the ones that are being done by families that are struggling to pay for groceries, struggling to pay every time they go to the bowser at the petrol station. Under this, they're going to be struggling even more. They are hurting so much, and that is why the suspension is so important. That is why Labor has to finally concede that, before it came to power, it said: 'Let the sun shine in. Let there be more transparency.' Yet they are gagging debate again and again. This is simply not good enough.

And they're doing it in collaboration with, for and on behalf of the teals. They are a party; let's make no mistake. They're also doing it on behalf of the Greens.

Opposition Members

Opposition members interjecting—

Mike Freelander

We don't need the echo. Order.

Michael McCormack

They are here and they are helping. They've all been denied speaking on this important debate. Every one of my colleagues behind me are very concerned, very worried and very upset that they weren't allowed to speak about the fuel efficiency standards. We saw the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government come to the dispatch box and talk about how much this is going to mean for the regions. She has absolutely no idea. This is the same minister who has absolutely cut, stalled, delayed or, indeed, taken away all of the regional infrastructure, all of the roads infrastructure—so much so that even in the Courier Mail yesterday the columnist was talking about how much easier it was to deal with the coalition when it came to infrastructure. That's from Palaszczuk government insiders.

Here we have a government that feels the need to not only gag debate but then ram through this unnecessary legislation. The ones who will be hurting the most are our farmers. The ones who will be hurting the most are our rural and regional families and, indeed, those in remote areas. I appreciate that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy says that this is necessary. I appreciate that he says that this is going to lead to reduced emissions. I appreciate that he says this is going to lead us closer to net zero. But it's all poppycock. It absolutely is. He knows it.

What we've seen today is a denial of democracy. What we've seen today is the Labor government denying people from the coalition, members who are sent here by their constituents—by their rural and regional constituents in particular—to speak on this debate, and they have not been given or afforded the opportunity to do so. This is a shameful day for this parliament. In 14 years I have never seen this sort of behaviour by those opposite, who promised more, who promised better when they came to power. That is why the suspension is so necessary. This is another tax on families. This is another tax on farmers. This is another tax on the regions. It is so unnecessary from those opposite, who should have known better, who promised better and who have broken yet another promise to the Australian people.

Long debate text truncated.

Chris Bowen

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that this bill be now read a third time.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that this bill be now read a third time.

Kylea Tink

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet revised 13 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 14), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

(2) Schedule 1, item 24, page 24 (line 7), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

The amendments I'm moving today would shorten the timeframe for the prominence provisions to come into effect to 12 months after the bill passes. As the bill currently stands, manufacturers would have an 18-month transition period, after which they would be required to ensure that their prominence obligations have been met. Having reviewed the views of many stakeholders, the submissions made to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and the recommendations of that committee, I believe it is both appropriate and feasible to fast-track the prominence provisions. Specifically, the Senate committee, after thoroughly examining this legislation, recommended:

… that the Minister for Communications and the Australian Communications and Media Authority consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe.

Manufacturers have been aware of the proposed prominence obligations for some time now, giving them time to consider necessary preparations. Additionally, many of the changes necessary to meet the prominence provisions are controlled by software rather than hardware. So, while many of the manufacturers will be meeting the needs of the global marketplace, the truth is that the software is tailored to where the device is landing. As we all know, software updates happen at a sometimes frightening and frequent pace.

During the Senate inquiry into this bill, experts made it clear that many of the changes required could be made, effectively, overnight through a server update. In fact, some experts have suggested that the prominence requirements for manufacturers could be implemented within six months—six months sooner than the amendment that I am moving actually proposes. But, given the Senate committee's recommendation and given everything that I have heard, my amendments propose that the timeframe be shortened from 18 months to 12 months, because the truth is this: for every month that we delay, we risk Australians paying for content that is actually otherwise available to them free of charge because we simply don't have the prominence framework right in this nation.

Michelle Rowland

I thank the member for North Sydney for her amendments and for her interest and engagement in these matters. I note that the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee recommended that the government consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and/or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe. I have given this recommendation close consideration. I remain of the view that the 18-month period in the bill strikes a balance between a range of factors. Firstly, the prominence framework is novel, and an 18-month implementation timeframe is a prudent approach to the commencement of any new regulations. Secondly, the bill interacts with global manufacturing and distribution supply chains, with long lead times involved in the design, development, manufacture and distribution of devices. Manufacturers need a reasonable timeframe to adjust to the new framework. Thirdly, there needs to be a realistic period of time for the regulator, the ACMA, to establish the operative and detailed elements of the framework. This market is evolving rapidly, and connected TV devices are not homogenous. For these reasons, the government will oppose this amendment.

Milton Dick

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

Lisa Chesters

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today for the suspension of standing and sessional orders by the honourable member for Melbourne, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.

Milton Dick

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

Andrew Wilkie

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) last night the Member for Clark revealed deeply disturbing allegations of egregious misconduct within the AFL provided by former Melbourne Football Club President, Glen Bartlett, former Melbourne team doctor, Zeeshan Arain, and Shaun Smith, father of Melbourne player and now alleged drug trafficker Joel Smith, including:

(i) the prevalence of drug abuse and other prohibited behaviour across the AFL;

(ii) in particular the "off the books" drug testing of players at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, facilitated by the former Chief Medical Officer of the AFL, Peter Harcourt;

(iii) the resting of players testing positive in these secret tests, ostensibly on account of injury;

(iv) wilful inaction by AFL executives; and

(v) the removal of Mr Bartlett as President of MFC after he suggested to current AFL Chairman Mr Richard Goyder and then AFL Chief Executive Mr Gillon McLachlan that AFL officials be regularly drug tested;

(b) this subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sports Integrity Australia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Authority; and

(c) the Member for Clark was denied leave from the Government when seeking to table documents containing evidence relating to these allegations; and

(2) therefore allows the Member for Clark to table the documents referred to in his speech.

Leave not granted.

I move:

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

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) last night the Member for Clark revealed deeply disturbing allegations of egregious misconduct within the AFL provided by former Melbourne Football Club President, Glen Bartlett, former Melbourne team doctor, Zeeshan Arain, and Shaun Smith, father of Melbourne player and now alleged drug trafficker Joel Smith, including:

(i) the prevalence of drug abuse and other prohibited behaviour across the AFL;

(ii) in particular the "off the books" drug testing of players at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, facilitated by the former Chief Medical Officer of the AFL, Peter Harcourt;

(iii) the resting of players testing positive in these secret tests, ostensibly on account of injury;

(iv) wilful inaction by AFL executives; and

(v) the removal of Mr Bartlett as President of MFC after he suggested to current AFL Chairman Mr Richard Goyder and then AFL Chief Executive Mr Gillon McLachlan that AFL officials be regularly drug tested;

(b) this subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sports Integrity Australia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Authority; and

(c) the Member for Clark was denied leave from the Government when seeking to table documents containing evidence relating to these allegations; and

(2) therefore allows the Member for Clark to table the documents referred to in his speech.

There is an urgent need to suspend standing orders and deal with this motion, because we now know that there's a secret game happening behind AFL games, and the government needs to act urgently to stop it. In the Federation Chamber last night, I ventilated deeply troubling allegations of misconduct in the AFL, in particular concerning the systemic failure of the AFL to effectively test for and prevent the use of prohibited drugs or to sanction players and officials found to have used prohibited drugs. I noted:

… the term 'white line fever' has taken on a different and sinister meaning at the AFL.

And I made it perfectly clear that the allegations are detailed in signed statements which I tried to enter into the parliamentary record but was stopped from doing so by the government in what I assume was a massive misstep or a cover-up.

Since then, the whistleblowers who provided the material have implored me to do everything I can to ensure that these documents are tabled and read by the Prime Minister, because they're tired of cover ups. We all are. Incredibly, the AFL have this morning chosen not to deny the allegations. The Swans CEO is even being reported as having spoken to the AFL, who have admitted that the off-the-books drug testing regime does in fact exist.

The whistleblowers are so concerned, and I am pushing so hard on this, because such appalling behaviour endangers the lives, safety and future of players and officials; subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sports Integrity Australia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Agency; and is a fraud on the governments and taxpayers that provide millions of dollars in support to the AFL directly and indirectly, through tax breaks, grants and beneficial capital works, conditional on the AFL being a signatory to and complying with the World Anti-Doping Code. This evidence shows that they are wilfully breaking this requirement.

In essence, the scheme facilitated by former AFL chief medical officer Peter Harcourt would give players access to off-the-books drug tests, before games, at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg in Victoria. If no drugs were detected in the players' systems, they would play. If drugs were detected, the player would be advised to fake an injury. This allowed players to circumvent the match day drug testing by Sports Integrity Australia, as required under the World Anti-Doping Code.

Substantiating this claim is a signed statement from former Melbourne Football Club doctor Dr Zeeshan Arain in which Dr Arain explains how the scheme allows players to use illegal drugs and continue to play through the season. But, as Dr Arain explains, this isn't just a Melbourne problem; it's an AFL problem, with multiple players coming to Melbourne from other teams with pre-existing cocaine dependencies, more than suggesting that drug-testing workarounds are, in fact, commonplace elsewhere in the AFL.

Moreover, I've obtained documents indicating a shocking unwillingness by senior AFL executives to address drug abuse and, in particular, cocaine use—like the very detailed notes of a meeting between former AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan, AFL Commission chairman Richard Goyder and former Melbourne president Glen Bartlett. Two things jump out at you from that record. One, echoed by Mr Barlett in his signed statement, is that the AFL hid concerns about alleged cocaine use by Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin from Mr Bartlett for up to 18 months. The second is that in that meeting Mr Bartlett, who is a lawyer, said he planned to introduce drug testing of players and officials, arguing that sports administrators also should be drug free. Here's the rub: within eight weeks of that meeting, Mr Bartlett had been unexpectedly pushed out of the AFL, despite having just recently been asked to serve as president for three more years. Best I say that again: Glen Bartlett was dumped by the AFL just eight weeks after the meeting with Gillon McLachlan and Richard Goyder where he suggested mandatory drug testing for AFL executives.

There's also the signed statement from retired player Shaun Smith, the father of current player Joel Smith. Joel, of course, is under investigation for allegedly trafficking drugs to his teammates. In his statement, Shaun maintains that his son had not been a cocaine user prior to joining the AFL and attributes his son's situation to the AFL's aiding and abetting of drug use—and he's right, we now know.

To be clear: the AFL is not a private company, and these matters are no ordinary drug scandal. No, the AFL is an entity regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect tax breaks, government grants and beneficial capital works. In reality, the AFL is just a big business, sustained, in part, by helping players secretly break the World Anti Doping Agency code. Moreover, it is not an exaggeration to say that the off-the-books testing scheme sees the AFL effectively involved in a multi-hundred million dollar fraud on the taxpayer.

Australian Rules football plays an incredibly important part in the lives of so many of us, including the kids at Auskick clinics. To be absolutely clear: I'm thrilled that Tasmania is set to finally have an AFL team, but it's exactly because of all that that we expect the AFL to act with integrity and for us not be left wondering just how many young lives have been ruined by illegal drug use known to but not acted on by the AFL.

This matter calls for intervention at the highest level, which is why I asked last night, and why I'm asking again right now, that the Prime Minister personally intervene in this matter, study the documents in my possession and do everything he can to restore and protect the reputation of our beloved game.

In light of all of this, I ask the House to suspend standing orders and to support this motion urgently, because the whistleblowers need the detail of their allegations to be known and the context in which they've spoken up to be understood.

Lisa Chesters

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Zoe Daniel

I rise to second the motion from the member for Clark. In support of the tabling of documents that go to the integrity of, arguably, our nation's favourite sport, these allegations are serious. They go to whistleblower protection, which is grossly inadequate in this country, and it's the reason we're forced to talk about this under privilege this morning. They go to the AFL's duty of care to its players.

In Melbourne and in my electorate, football is life. From Auskick to community club footy to the VFL and VFLW to the big games at the 'G, this is the beating heart of Melbourne. In many ways, as I've said before in this chamber, maybe we've lost sight of what football is about. It's about kids, families, health and fun, not big money and fame.

These allegations go to that loss of perspective. As many know, my father played in the VFL and I grew up at footy training, really. Both of my teenagers play AFL and dream of playing at the highest level. I note that Goldstein, in many ways, is Demons' heartland, and, as an Essendon supporter, I know what drug scandals can do to clubs.

There is zero benefit to me of speaking to this motion, but there is a cost of not fully examining these allegations and releasing these documents to the sport and to the players. These documents must be tabled. I don't stand here to make a judgement on recreational drug use. However, the point of this debate is about what drugs can do to clubs and players—create a culture of normalisation of cocaine use and, in some cases, addiction—and how to protect players, young men and now young women in the hothouse of professional sport, who are on unusually high incomes, often at an early age, and are therefore highly vulnerable.

The documents in question include sworn statements from whistleblowers, which I've examined in granular detail and which the member for Clark has outlined extensively, and this is what we seek to table today.

As well as the concerns about whistleblowers and the way they're treated and role modelling, the thing that jumps out at me most is the allegations from the former Melbourne Football Club doctor. In his statement, Dr Zeeshan Arain says:

At the end of the day it's a business and the players are treated as a commodity. There is no desire to address this issue because it's a fickle world particularly for people in power and people making money.

He says:

Ultimately this is a management issue. The culture comes from management. The players are there to play football. The players don't define culture.'

I note that the AFL uses an opaque three-strike medical model as a way of protecting players from lengthy bans for non-performance-enhancing recreational drug use. My question, then, is: is this other off-the-books testing that's alleged the same thing, and do the sports integrity agencies, WADA and ASADA, endorse it, as it appears directly designed to subvert their systems, with faked injuries thrown in? The exact AFL policy needs to be clearly explained and justified, particularly given the implied concern in these statements about the take-up of recreational cocaine use after players join the AFL and whether such a subversion approach not only facilitates that but covers it up and is in turn innately dishonest. This is a matter of trust, and it's a matter of player welfare.

If one thing convinced me to make this speech, it was this line in the doctor's sworn statement:

Right now, I would not let my children play AFL …

For me, not only as an MP but as a parent and a self-described football tragic, this goes to the future of our children and the very future of the sport. I therefore call on the government to allow these documents to be tabled to open this up to proper scrutiny.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

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