Julie-Ann Campbell

I think it's fair to say that, when most people hear the words 'payments system modernisation', their eyes might glaze over. They might not be particularly excited. They might lean back in their chair and get ready for a snooze. They might put in their earphones and settle in to watch something on a streaming service—but not me. I am excited by payment systems because, while they might not seem sexy, they are something that we use every single day.

If you are writing out a cheque to someone special on their big birthday, if you are going to the corner store and swiping your debit card to buy milk when you are on your way home, if you are tapping your digital wallet at the supermarket when you're off to buy nappies, if you are paying cash when you are at the petrol station—each and every one of those things is a payments system. It's not something that we think about very often, but we use payment systems more than we do anything else that we will talk about today in this House. We use them to buy things every single day. But the technology is changing, and we have to change with it. To make sure that we protect consumers when it comes to payment systems, we have to make sure that the RBA can regulate them, and that is what this bill is all about.

While the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payments System Modernisation) Bill 2025 might not be the subject of intense water-cooler discussion in offices across the country, it is a very important piece of legislation. At its core, what it addresses is the risks that new and emerging technologies pose to the way we pay for goods and services. In 2025 you do that more often than not with just a tap of your phone. Updating the payments system regulatory framework is necessary to ensure Australia has a fit-for-purpose, modern and efficient payments system. This is crucial because the smooth operation of the economy rests upon it. You use the payments system when you dash to the servo to buy that milk late at night, you use it to transfer money to your mate at a restaurant after a shared dinner, and it's used to put your wages into your account. Every single day we use a payments system. None of us probably think very much about it when we're tapping our phones to buy our Pepsi Max, but it is the foundation of our financial system.

The payments system supports the stability of the financial system by minimising risks associated with transactions and by facilitating the flow of payments. A well-functioning payments systems bolsters the development of the financial sector through inspiring consumer and business confidence in their transactions. It also links Australians to the global marketplace. We know that consumers, everyday people in the community and in our society, need to have that confidence if they're going to put their hard earned money across the table to buy goods and services. Ensuring that our payments systems are up to date with technology and are well regulated is what drives that confidence for consumers. The components of the payments system are the nuts and bolts of our financial system. That's why it needs to be safe, that's why it needs to be trusted and that's why it needs to be accessible. And that is what this bill delivers.

The sector is a rapidly evolving sector, and, as a result of the digital revolution, teenagers today make purchases instantly and seamlessly with their watches or their phones. They've never had to learn how to write a cheque, and the only cash they see is in birthday cards from their grandparents. We now have a payment system that is large and complex, one that is continually adjusting to new technologies and processes. As the transactions become easier and more convenient for consumers, there are opportunities for growth and also increased risk. Where there is increased risk, we need to make sure that people in our community are protected, without stifling growth that will be critical to our economy.

There is also the need to balance this with maintaining the more traditional methods of payment, to meet the needs of consumers who rely on those systems. Those consumers are often some of the most vulnerable in our community. That's why, as we expand the regulatory framework for payment systems, we need to make sure that those consumers who use more traditional forms of payments are still protected, particularly older Australians. The New Payments Platform, NPP, underpins the modern payment system, enabling fast and secure transactions. Services such as PayID and PayTo have changed the way consumers and businesses interact. As of mid-2023, nearly 13 million PayIDs had been created, over 25 per cent of account-to-account transactions were being processed via the NPP, and more than 100 payment providers were offering NPP services to approximately 90 million consumer accounts. We are hugely reliant on the robustness and security of this digital infrastructure, and we must take into account the necessity of safeguarding against outages, against technological failures and against cyberattacks.

This bill is part of Labor's commitment to the Strategic Plan for Australia's Payment System, which was released in June 2023. The strategy lists five priorities for the government. The first is promoting a safe and resilient payment system. This involves reducing the prevalence of scams and fraudulent activity, strengthening cybersecurity measures to guard against attacks and maintaining robust oversight of systematically important payment infrastructures. When it comes to scams, everyone in this chamber knows someone who has been hit by a scam, whether it be digital or online. Making sure that we as a government prioritise protecting those vulnerable people who are the target of scams is an important part of what we do. The secondary focus is on ensuring the payments regulatory framework keeps pace with technological and market developments. That is what we're talking about particularly in this bill today. Key initiatives include establishing a comprehensive licensing framework for payment services providers and promoting competition through transparent access to payment systems.

Thirdly, there is a need to modernise the payments infrastructure by implementing the phased removal of cheques, the enhancement of existing systems and the continued provision of access to cash, to ensure that no community is left behind. This purpose is designed to make sure that, whether you like to tap your phone as you get on the bus, you like to put cash in a card to your grandchild on their birthday or you like to use a debit card, it doesn't matter; you will be protected, you can have confidence in that payment system, and you will have a regulated system that works for everyone.

The next priority area is in uplifting competition, productivity and innovation across the economy. We've recently seen that the Treasurer hosted a roundtable focused on productivity. With our laser focus on ensuring that productivity increases and that we have reform in the productivity space, this is another layer to that work. This means aligning the payment system with broader economic and digital transformation goals. These include the Consumer Data Right framework, supporting wider adoption of digital ID and investing in digital and technological skills development.

Finally, the government aims to establish Australia itself as a leader in the global payments landscape, by creating a regulatory environment that encourages innovation and investment. This includes facilitating seamless cross-border payments and exploring the policy rationale for introducing a central bank digital currency. This background is useful to explain the broader work the Albanese Labor government is undertaking in this area, and this bill is an important part of that work.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payments System Modernisation) Bill 2025 provides expanded definitions for 'payments system' and for 'participant' so that the Reserve Bank of Australia can regulate new and emerging payments systems and participants. These include digital wallet providers and buy-now pay-later service providers.

As part of the risk management protocols, the legislation will also enable the Treasurer to designate payment services or platforms that present risks of national significance. This isn't just about protecting everyday consumers, this isn't just about protecting people in our community and families in our community, this is also about protecting our country from risks of national significance. These designations will give appropriate regulators additional oversight powers. This is a sensible and responsible approach from the forward-looking Labor government.

Under the new legislation, the Treasurer will only be able to give general directions. The Treasurer will not be able to direct the regulator on how to exercise functions or how to enforce regulations. This ensures the ongoing independence of the regulator in assessing and exercising their regulatory powers. These measures are key steps outlined in A strategic p lan for Australia's_ _payments s ystem. They also directly respond to recommendations in the payments systems review that the RBA should be better-positioned to regulate new and emerging payments systems that are part of the changing and growing payments ecosystem.

The recommendations also state that there should be a greater role for the government, through the Treasurer, in setting the strategic direction of the payments ecosystem in collaboration with regulators and industry. That is what this bill does.

As I mentioned, one of the drivers of these reforms is for Australia's regulatory framework to facilitate competition and innovation while upholding financial stability and decreasing risk. To achieve this, the Albanese Labor government embarked on a comprehensive consultation process with stakeholders regarding this bill. Consultation partners included industry participants, government agencies and regulators prior to the release of the strategic plan. The Treasury also received 30 submissions from banks, payment-service providers and industry associations. Further stakeholder meetings were held with organisations such as the Australian Banking Association, the National Retail Association, PayPal, Google and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to work through feedback on the text of the new definitions and the scope of the new powers proposed for the Treasurer.

The measures outlined in this bill are necessary to ensure that the RBA can not only regulate new and emerging payment providers but also combat risks to our national interest by expanding these powers to designated regulators. The measures support the government's key principles for the payment system: it is to be trustworthy, accessible, innovative and efficient. At their heart, what these laws are about is keeping up with the times. Because payment systems are something that we might not think about every day, but they are something that we use every day. Making sure that, as technology advances, we continue to protect consumers, to protect the national interest, to protect families who go about their day not thinking about payment systems but using them is incredibly important, because we don't want people to be scammed, we don't want new technologies to remain unregulated and we don't want families not to have the confidence to be able to pay for their groceries, their fuel and their health care every single day. They also speak to Labor's determination to provide a safe and secure payment environment for all Australians.

Long debate text truncated.

Kate Chaney

I move:

That the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for consideration and an advisory report.

I rise today to highlight significant concerns about the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 that justify referring this bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This bill has been introduced in response to the High Court's NZYQ decision and the challenges that have followed. The government has been clear about its aim to expedite the removal of noncitizens who have exhausted all options to remain in Australia.

I understand the government's concern. The NZYQ decision has left us with a group of people in the community who have serious criminal histories, and the government needs tools to deal with them quickly. I support the intention to manage that group in a way that protects the community, but there are serious question marks about whether this bill is the best way to do that. It retrospectively validates an unknown number of decisions that were based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. It also provides that procedural fairness doesn't apply at key steps in the removal process, without a proper assessment of whether this is appropriate, and it applies to a much broader group than the up to 300 individuals commonly described as the NZYQ cohort. It could also apply to many who have not committed any criminal offence and who may not have finished exercising their review rights. Some estimates suggest the practical reach could extend to around 80,000 people—well beyond what the public has been led to believe.

The fundamental problem is that parliament does not currently have a clear understanding of the true impact of this bill. We do not know how many people this bill could affect or in which circumstances. For that reason, I do not believe this bill should be rushed through the chamber. That's why I'm moving this motion to refer the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for detailed scrutiny. Before parliament passes a law relating to the application of procedural fairness for large classes of people, we should understand exactly who will be affected, how the powers will operate in practice, and what safeguards are needed to avoid serious error.

Let me step back to explain how we got here. In November 2023, the High Court handed down the NZYQ decision, and the court ruled that indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there's no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. This meant the government could no longer keep certain noncitizens in detention indefinitely, and between 150 and 300 people were released into the community. These people became known as the NZYQ cohort. Some of them had serious criminal histories, including violent or sexual offences. The government scrambled to respond by granting this group visas known as bridging visa Rs with strict conditions—ankle bracelets, curfews and regular reporting. Later, some of those conditions were struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional.

Since then, the government has sought ways to remove this group from Australia. One attempt was to deport three NZYQ members to Nauru. This was contested in the courts, based on the argument that the government had not applied the principle of procedural fairness. Earlier this year, the TCXM case found that procedural fairness did not apply to exercises of executive power like these, where a government is dealing with another government on behalf of an individual where a decision has already been made to deport them. This decision may be appealed in the future, but this bill aims to deal with this issue to limit further appeals.

It appears that the government is trying to do two things with this bill: firstly, retrospectively fix any decision that was made before NZYQ, based on the erroneous belief that indefinite detention is legal; and, secondly, ensure that procedural fairness doesn't apply to certain types of executive power related to the removal of noncitizens, in line with the TCXM decision. By seeking to validate past removal decisions that might now be unlawful in light of the NZYQ court decision, this bill would remove the right for individuals to have their decisions remade based on a correct interpretation of the law.

On procedural fairness, the bill makes it clear that the intention of the parliament is that procedural fairness does not apply in a set of specific powers used for deportation—namely, collecting, using and disclosing information to foreign countries—for example, sharing information about a potential migrant with a foreign country in preparation for deportation; collecting, using and disclosing criminal history information—for example, sharing criminal history information with a series of government officials in order to arrange for deportation; coming to arrangements with foreign countries to receive our deportees—for example, buying a Nauru visa for a migrant; and giving directions to a migrant to perform certain activities to facilitate their own deportation—for example, directing a migrant to purchase a passport.

Procedural fairness is a simple concept that forms a fundamental safeguard in our legal system. When government is making a decision that will adversely affect a person, the person should be told, shown the evidence and given a fair chance to respond. If a person is set to be deported, the government can make all the arrangements overseas, such as negotiating a visa or entry into another country, without telling the person. That person will then be legally required to comply with directions, without any right to respond, even if the arrangements are mistaken, impractical or harmful.

I have four main concerns with this bill which I think need to be considered by a committee. My first concern relates to the retrospective validation of unlawful decisions. The bill validates past visa decisions that may now be unlawful following the NZYQ decision. Retrospective lawmaking is always problematic. It undermines confidence in the rule of law when parliament steps in to rewrite the legality of past actions. People who may have had valid grounds to challenge decisions will lose that opportunity. The way the law works, if a court interprets the law in a particular way, that's seen to be the way the law always was. So, decisions made based on a previous, erroneous understanding of the law are then invalid. Changing the law retrospectively to declare decisions valid even though they were made based on an erroneous understanding of the law undermines this legal principle, and we should be very cautious before endorsing such a step. The minister has made visa decisions based on a series of factors, one of which was the belief that indefinite detention was legal. If this is not the case, those decisions are invalid. This is my main concern with the bill and the main reason this should be referred to a committee. When we're talking about decisions that deal with such fundamental issues as individual freedoms, we should not just paper over the cracks.

My second concern is that the bill declares that procedural fairness doesn't apply to these types of executive actions. While this may confirm the law as it exists right now, based on the finding of the TCXM case, any law that limits procedural fairness should be considered very carefully and with proper scrutiny. Changing the application of procedural fairness strikes at the heart of our legal system. For centuries, our legal system has recognised that there are moral and philosophical concepts of fairness that are pretty universal. In the last 50 years, this has been articulated as a more specific concept of procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is not about giving people endless rights of appeal. It's about something much simpler: ensuring people have the chance to know what's being decided about them and to respond. Procedural fairness upholds the integrity, transparency and accountability of decision-making processes, especially in government and administrative contexts. It protects individual rights, which is especially important when decisions have serious personal consequences—like they do if we're deporting someone to a country they have no connection with—and it promotes trust in institutions. People are more likely to accept outcomes, even unfavourable ones, if they believe the process is fair.

Exempting procedural fairness removes basic safeguards such as the right to be heard or to challenge adverse evidence. This undermines public confidence in the fairness of government decision-making and increases the risk of factual errors or bias. Not allowing procedural fairness may be in breach of our obligations under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Imagine being told you're to be deported to Nauru immediately. The government has already shared your personal information with the Nauru government and purchased a visa on your behalf. You might have children at school here. You might be caring for a partner with a serious illness. You might even be the wrong person, because of an administrative error. Under this bill, none of those matters could be raised as a matter of procedural fairness. You'd be legally obliged to comply with directions, and the government would be not required to hear your side.

Following a Federal Court decision this year, the courts may have already found that procedural fairness doesn't apply to these particular powers. In that case, what's the rush? There's time to send this to a committee for proper scrutiny. If there is any doubt about the application of procedural fairness—which, presumably, there is, or the government would not be introducing this bill—then it deserves scrutiny. I'm not arguing that procedural fairness should never be removed from certain legal powers, but I believe that we always need proper scrutiny of the impacts when dealing with such a fundamental legal right.

My third concern is that, while the government says this bill is aimed at the NZYQ cohort, its scope is far wider. The bill largely applies to removal pathway noncitizens. This includes people on bridging visa R, the specific visa for the NZYQ group, but also many people on bridging visa E and potentially people without visas. That's a much larger population. Previous Senate estimates found that this could apply to over 80,000 people rather than just the 300-odd in the NZYQ cohort. It also appears to apply to migrants who still have legal pathways to remain in Australia, contradictory to the government's claims. Some of this bill goes even further, to an even wider range of migrants. If we're going to pass a law that makes it clear that no procedural fairness applies to such a large number of people, it deserves scrutiny.

Finally I'm concerned by the rushed nature of this bill. It was introduced last week without clear consultation and will likely be debated and passed tomorrow. The government is clearly desperate to deal with the NZYQ cohort. This is reflected in the eye-watering sums of money that the government is reportedly paying Nauru to accept these people. The Guardian has reported that the government has agreed to deport to 280 members of the NZYQ cohort to Nauru, compensating Nauru with a $400 million upfront payment and annual payments of $70 million a year. That's $1.4 million per individual, with an annual payment per individual of $250,000. It is essential that we deal with this cohort of people quickly and safely. Based on the TCXM case, procedural fairness has already been found, at least in the first-instance decision, not to apply to the exercise of executive power needed to remove the problem of this cohort to Nauru. If it's not needed, then what's the rush? Let's go through a proper process. The fact that this bill is being introduced rather than the TCXM decision being relied upon indicates that there may be some doubt about the application of procedural fairness. If there's doubt, we should be treading very carefully. The retrospective legalisation of all decisions made based on an erroneous understanding of the law deserves scrutiny rather than haste. This is a complex area of law intersecting with constitutional principles, international obligations and human rights. It should not be rushed. Parliament works best when we take the time to scrutinise legislation carefully, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.

Concerns about the bill are shared by a number of groups that look deeply at these types of issues, including the Human Rights Law Centre, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Refugee Advice & Casework Service and Liberty Victoria. Given these concerns, I believe this bill should be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for consideration. The committee should consider, amongst other things, the number of visa decisions that may be affected by the original NZYQ court case and the implications for individuals of retrospectively validating these decisions, as opposed to allowing them to be reviewed; whether it's appropriate and justified to affirm the TCXM decision that procedural fairness does not apply in circumstances like this; and the potential impact of the bill beyond the NZYQ cohort. That scrutiny would give parliament the confidence to pass legislation that is precise, targeted and fair rather than broad and rushed.

I would also like to see the bill reviewed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Let me be clear. I understand the government's desire to deal quickly with the NZYQ cohort. Community safety is paramount, and we must have tools to remove people with violent criminal histories when they have no right to remain here. But, as legislators, we have a duty to make good law not just fast law. We need to balance security with fairness and efficiency with accountability. That's why this bill should go to committee. We owe it to the Australian public and to those affected by these laws to get it right.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Mark Butler

In summing up, I table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. The Albanese government is committed to strengthening Medicare and delivering cheaper medicines. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, provides timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines for all Australians. The Albanese government is supporting all Australians with cost-of-living relief, and this bill is just one of the many ways we're providing more affordable medicines to Australians, with savings to general patients of over $200 million per year.

The speeches we have heard in the debate on this bill in this place remind us why cheaper medicines are so important. The member for Bass, for example, spoke of pharmacists in her electorate who had shared stories with her of parents standing at their counter, weighing up which prescription they could afford to take home and which one they would have to leave behind. No parent in Australia, as the member for Bass reminded us, should ever have to make that choice, and, with this bill, fewer families will.

The member for Griffith spoke of a constituent in her electorate who was cutting her antidepressant tablets in half just to make them last longer. This woman was juggling medicines for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mental health, and she just simply couldn't afford them all. The new member for Barton spoke of a young mother from Hurstville, in her electorate, who skips her own medication so she can afford antibiotics when her child gets sick and of the pensioner from Beverly Hills who told her she would space out her medication by only taking it every second day instead of daily, just to manage her expenses. By reducing the co-payment for general patients, we'll ensure the maximum amount a general patient will pay for a PBS medicine will be just $25 per script plus any applicable premiums—the same rate that it was way back in 2004.

This bill reminds us that we rely on the PBS to ensure that all Australians have continued access to high-quality health care at affordable prices, which is even more crucial in a time when the cost of living continues to be a major concern for Australian households. The reduction to $25 provides immediate cost-of-living relief to patients without a concession card while also ensuring that the PBS remains a sustainable investment for government. This level of investment was selected to ensure it does not come at the expense of other government priorities, such as continued listings of new medicines on the PBS; investment in other essential health services, including bulk-billing; and a competitive and sustainable pharmacy market. The general patient co-payment will continue to be indexed on 1 January each year, in line with existing indexation arrangements. Indexing from January 2027 will be calculated off the new general co-payment amount of $25, thereby saving patients out-of-pocket expenses right into the future.

Making medicines cheaper is not just good for the hip pocket, although it obviously is—it's also good for your health. This bill delivers on a significant commitment made prior to the last election. It builds on earlier actions undertaken by the Albanese government to deliver cheaper medicines, and it helps strengthen Medicare and improve the health of all Australians. I sincerely thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill, and I again commend it to the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Monique Ryan

I move:

That item 12 of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health and Aged Care Measures No. 4) Regulations 2024 made under the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 on 24 October 2024 and presented to the House on 4 November 2024, be disallowed.

I move this motion to disallow the instrument amending the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, referred to as the Moderna partnership, tabled by the Minister for Finance in the Senate and then this House on 28 October 2024. The Morrison government struck a deal with Moderna in May 2021 to build a facility in Australia for the domestic production of new vaccines. The Morrison government had failed to procure COVID-19 vaccines in a timely manner. It had lost the vaccine race. It struck a hasty deal without the usual competitive tender so it would be able to announce that it was doing something, knowing full well that that facility would almost certainly be built too late to contribute significantly to the COVID-19 pandemic response. The terms of the deal were kept secret at the time.

We now know that it is a multibillion dollar deal in which taxpayers paid for a facility which is fully owned by Moderna—a facility that has, as yet in 2025, failed to produce a single dose of vaccine for our domestic use. We now know—but only because of the tabling of this disallowable instrument by Senator Gallagher last October—that, as part of the Morrison-Hunt agreement, the government has created a streamlined vaccine procurement process exclusively for Moderna's pandemic and non-pandemic vaccines outside the National Immunisation Program.

The need for pandemic preparedness is still front of mind for all Australians, but this financial arrangement is about more than just preparing ourselves for the next pandemic. It is a commercial leg-up for one company in what is a very competitive non-pandemic vaccine market. This arrangement should be revised to ensure a level playing field for the best Australian and global companies to research, develop and manufacture the best medicines for Australians in Australia. It should be disallowed because it circumvents the standards and safeguards of Commonwealth procurement processes on the grounds of protecting human health when in fact it is to be applied to non-emergency medicines. There is a defined and accepted process for the procurement of medicines and medical treatments in this country. There is no possible justification for non-emergency vaccines sidestepping this process.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the greatest trauma experienced by this country in this century. Thousands of Australians died. Our social and economic life was damaged. Tens of billions of dollars were wasted by the Morrison government on a poorly directed economic stimulus package and on wasteful and opaque spending on diagnostics, PPE and vaccines. We will never know the full extent of that waste, because the Morrison and Albanese governments have refused a royal commission into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without those lessons, we will inevitably be less well prepared for the next pandemic. And so I'm moving this disallowance motion today in the national interest and in the interest of the health of Australians, the health of our economy and the health of the democratic institutions that safeguard the national public interest. I'm moving this motion in the interests of transparency so that a major decision of our government during the pandemic doesn't just slide through this place unnoticed and unquestioned.

Do we welcome the Moderna facility in Australia—Moderna in Australia? Yes, we do. Australia's world-class health and medical research capacity, with which I am personally and particularly familiar, makes us an obvious location for world-class pharmaceutical manufacturing. During the pandemic, Moderna's vaccine development was the fastest ever seen globally. Moderna's mRNA vaccine for COVID saved millions of lives. Do we need to expand our vaccine manufacturing domestically? We clearly do. Right now, only one COVID-19 vaccine is available in Australia. That's Pfizer (COMIRNATY) JN.1. The Albanese government actually decided not to replenish supplies of Moderna mRNA vaccine in late 2024. Those unable to receive mRNA vaccines have been unable to access any form of COVID vaccine in Australia since July 2024, and this has caused a lot of distress to those people who are keen to access the Novavax vaccine. We know that two COVID-19 variants are currently active in Australia. A recent COVID wave affected more than 200 aged-care facilities. Most older Australians have not been immunised for six months or more.

Does government investment in sovereign capability for medicine production domestically make sense? Yes, it does. Our pandemic experience has shown us the risks of global supply chain interruptions, and they've shown us the importance of building expertise and capacity for research and manufacturing onshore and for safeguarding our resources. Australia imports 90 per cent of its medicines. We have ongoing shortages of medicines for ADHD, for diabetes, for palliative care, for HRT, for antibiotics and more. For years, I have been pushing for more support for local medicines production, which we could facilitate through schemes like A Future Made in Australia. But we have no certainty that putting this very large egg in this single basket is going to help our pharmaceutical industry, our vaccines industry, even just our mRNA industry to strengthen and diversify, or that it will provide continuity of local vaccine production before and after this contract expires in 2032. We don't know if the government has looked at other options open to it under the existing facility establishment agreement, such as expanding expenditure for research and development or for manufacturing for research rather than vaccines. These are options which could have significant spillover benefits for Australian medical research capability and for our commercialisation skills.

Do we need to support medical research in Australia? We certainly do, which is why I've been asking the minister to immediately release funds from the Medical Research Future Fund to universities and medical research institutes, which are struggling in a time of decreased local funding for research and development, and at a time when support of Australian medical research by the NIH and other US sources has decreased by $368 million in this year alone.

Why is this deal so concerning? Australia's decades-old system of vaccine procurement ensures that safe, effective and cost-effective vaccines are purchased and provided to the Australian people. The government's arrangement with Moderna is the biggest change to vaccine procurement in Australian history. It gives a massive commercial advantage to one company by making a multibillion contribution to the construction of a new, single facility and to the servicing of its operations, with no transparency as to what, if any, ownership we have of that infrastructure and the ongoing operations of the facility. It gives one single company access to expedited procurement processes, remembering that it takes on average 3.8 years for the PBAC to approve new vaccines in this country. In doing so, this agreement disadvantages other vaccine manufacturers. It creates a disincentive for other companies to invest or expand here. In seeking to build capacity, we are potentially stifling it.

It's wholly appropriate that governments invoke human health considerations during a pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic acute phases, both Pfizer and Moderna benefited from alternative health technology assessment processes. We needed those expedited pathways because of the longstanding issues with medical regulatory pathways in this country. Those issues persist. To its credit this government commissioned the health technology assessment review in 2022, but it reported in May 2024, and it's still not scheduling implementation of its recommendations until 2026. That is too slow. We need faster medication approvals. We need to ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic. Now is the time to improve the TGA, the PBAC and MSAC, not to build cut-outs for our favoured partners.

We don't know what HDA criteria and assessments will apply to the vaccines produced by this facility. We don't know how they're going to vary from the standard processes. But we do know that the government has actively disapplied the usual rules around competition, value for money, merits review and regulatory impact assessments. And remember that this special treatment is not just for pandemic vaccines. It specifically includes non-pandemic vaccines. There is no possible justification for this carve-out. The usual safeguards for procurement should apply. The usual standards of best product at best value should apply to non-pandemic vaccines produced by the Moderna facility.

Giving a single commercial entity a sweetheart deal undermines competition. Companies which didn't receive taxpayer gifts upfront do not have the same capacity to invest. A business environment characterised by uncompetitive deals is an active deterrent to other companies which might be considering capitalising on Australia's medical research expertise, companies which are considering investing locally in the research and development required to bring new and improved products to our market. A guarantee to a single company to fast-track approvals for their product while their competitors wait three years or more for the same approvals is anticompetitive. It's a deterrent to new research and development, for which we will all be the poorer.

We need our government to always act in the public's best interest, with honesty and transparency. That is more important than ever when it comes to health care. The people in this place should be asking: What is in the best interests of the people of Australia? With this deal from 2021, what is being promised to the Australian taxpayer in 2025 and beyond? How can we guarantee a fair and equal playing field for business investments in this country? How can we encourage research and development and build sovereign capacity for medicine production when we are committing to these sorts of deals? How do we best protect and preserve the health of all Australians?

To that end, I move that this instrument be disallowed, to give the parliament of Australia an opportunity to investigate these really important questions and to act transparently and in the best interests of the health and wellbeing of our constituents.

Sharon Claydon

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Joanne Ryan

I seek leave of the House to move a motion to suspend so much of the standing and sessional orders relating to private members' business on 25 August 2025.

Leave is not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Selection Committee's determinations for Monday, 25 August 2025 being varied to reflect the terms of the revised report and for the variation to be shown in the Notice Paper for Monday, 25 August under 'Business Accorded Priority' in the House and Federation Chamber.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Lisa Chesters

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Chief Government Whip be agreed to.

Amanda Rishworth

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I move the government amendment as circulated:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 18), at the end of section 135A, add:

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) requires the FWC to exercise its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards.

The amendment introduces new subsection (3) to proposed section 135A, putting it beyond doubt that the changes introduced by this bill do not require or compel the Fair Work Commission to undertake a review of all modern awards to see whether the new principle applies or not; review award terms outside the scope of an application before the commission; or exercise its powers to make, vary or revoke a modern award. It was never the intent of the bill to compel the commission to undertake a review of all modern awards or to review penalty and overtime rates if those terms are outside the scope of the particular application before the commission.

We are and have been incredibly confident that the bill as introduced, without this amendment, would not have operated in this way. However, the government is committed to ongoing genuine consultation, which I have afforded to the opposition but also, of course, to business, employer representatives and unions. We are amending the bill for the avoidance of any doubt and to provide certainty for stakeholders, in good faith. I commend the amendment.

Question agreed to.

Tim Wilson

I ask leave of the House to move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together, as circulated in my name.

Milton Dick

I call the Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

No such amendments have been circulated or exist, so we should continue.

Milton Dick

I'll just clarify with the clerks. The normal way is that the amendments are presented. I understand the instruction was given to only circulate them after the speech. That's the way consideration in detail works, to keep the smooth running of the House. The Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

There is nothing for us to give leave to because there is nothing that the House is in possession of. People have the choice as to whether they circulate or not. If you don't circulate, you've got to read the whole thing out, which he should now do.

Milton Dick

We're going to do this efficiently. The member for Goldstein can read the amendment out, then.

Tim Wilson

Sure. Amendment (1) reads:

Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6) to page 3 (line 18), omit section 135A, substitute:

135A Special provisions relating to penalty rates and overtime rates

(1) In exercising its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the FWC must be satisfied that:

(a) the rate of a penalty rate or an overtime rate that employees are entitled to receive under the modern award is not reduced; and

(b) modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration referred to in paragraph 134(1)(da) that an affected employee would otherwise receive under the modern award.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when the—

Milton Dick

Just a moment, Member for Goldstein, I'll get you to take a seat. The Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

I think what the member for Goldstein is trying to do is move the amendments, which means he has to say at the start that he is moving them and then go through the provisions he is moving, otherwise there will be nothing before the House.

Milton Dick

Member for Goldstein, you've made the decision to read the amendments out, but, just before you start, to assist the House, could you say formally, 'I move the amendments,' and then begin.

Tim Wilson

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6) to page 3 (line 18), omit section 135A, substitute:

135A Special provisions relating to penalty rates and overtime rates

(1) In exercising its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the FWC must be satisfied that:

(a) the rate of a penalty rate or an overtime rate that employees are entitled to receive under the modern award is not reduced; and

(b) modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration referred to in paragraph 134(1)(da) that an affected employee would otherwise receive under the modern award.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part pursuant to:

(a) section 144 (flexibility terms); or

(b) section 160 (which deals with variation to remove ambiguities or correct errors); or

(c) paragraph 157 (3)(a) (own initiative).

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms existed immediately prior to commencement of Subsection (1).

(4) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms are expressed to apply only to a small business employer.

(5) Subsection (1) does not limit the FWC's ability to make a determination to vary a modern award where the determination is made:

(a) to ensure that awards are operating effectively by addressing any anomaly or technical irregularity in the award arising from either the making of the award or past variations to it; or

(b) as an outcome of proceedings commenced by the Commission of its own motion if Commission is satisfied is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective and compliance with section 138, or

(c) following the Fair Work Commission being satisfied that the variation is fair to employees and that it would:

(i) improve productivity; or

(ii) promote employment opportunities or the participation of employees in paid work; or

(iii) assist employees to balance their work and family commitments.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3 Regulatory impact statement

(1) The Minister must cause a regulatory impact statement to be prepared in relation to the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The persons preparing the regulatory impact statement must complete it within one year after this Act commences.

(3) The persons preparing the regulatory impact statement must give the Minister a copy of the statement.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the regulatory impact statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives a copy of the statement.

We just had a long dissertation on the amendments put forward, even though I understand they have been provided to the Clerk. But the Leader of the House, in his brilliance and capacity to be able to manage the challenges of this parliament, particularly its committee process, is, of course, being a pedant. So be it. There is a simple reality: we support penalty rates. We understand how important it is to support jobs and small businesses, and there are no penalty rates on jobs that don't exist. We have gone directly to the Australian people because the minister has shut down any pathway of understanding the impact of the legislation she is putting before the House. She is not interested in hearing from nor speaking to nor seeing any small business, so we did the minister's job for her.

Let's look at some of the feedback we have from the Australian community on why these changes are so important, to make sure that these voices are heard: 'I run a small business, and I'd like to know what this new legislation is, because I don't know what it entails'; 'Small business requires owners to work in the businesses, be bookkeepers, know all the taxes, know all the fair work laws, know all retail and wage laws and make sure everything is on paper. Penalties are great if not done'; 'Big businesses have accountants and PR and HR professionals—things small businesses can't afford'; 'At present we have good businesses closing down which can't sell'; 'No-one wants the stress, pressure and long hours for what now has little reward. It's easy to have a government job with shorter hours, large penalty rates, holidays, sick leave et cetera.' This is the problem. Without any proper consultation, the government has not understood the consequences of its legislation and the impact it's going to have on small businesses. The minister's understanding of small business, and this government's understanding of small business, is that corner shops have HR departments, legal departments and special advisers.

By the way, that's where all the money for penalty rates for young Australians and people who want to get ahead and get paid well gets sucked into: non-economically-productive activity to manage the realities of laws in this country. When we talk about simplification, we're talking about getting rid of needless legal work, needless accounting work and needless industrial relations advice so you can actually pay Australians more. It's simpler, cleaner and easier so Australians can get ahead, support their families, be in a position to have flexibility in their workplace arrangements and do things like pick up kids from school or manage work-life balance. It seems an entirely logical thing to do, except, of course, if you're part of the Albanese government. If you know this is the reality, and you know this is the consequence of legislation put forward to this House, the questions for the minister, the Prime Minister and, of course, everybody on Labor benches are: Why do they not want to hear from small business, see small business or talk to small business? Why don't they want to have a conversation where they can give the voices of small business a say in this nation's parliament?

We have had sloppy drafting at every stage of this legislation. This is not just my view; it's, of course, the view of industry, who have explicitly said that these are badly drafted laws. To the credit of the minister, she moved an amendment to address some of the sloppy drafting in her legislation, just now, and we supported her. We supported her because we actually want to make sure we get the legislation we need so that we get the outcome that we want for the Australian people. I will take a point of slight hilarity, which is that she's now accusing me of being disingenuous in my approach—through the Speaker, of course. The minister simply doesn't understand. Some of us believe in empowering Australians. Some of us—

Milton Dick

We're dealing with technical amendments. This is not a general debate. This applies to everyone who moves consideration in detail. I've allowed some latitude here. To assist the House, member for Goldstein, make your remarks about the regulatory impact statement and the reasons behind that, perhaps.

Tim Wilson

One of the reasons we want a regulatory impact statement is that we need to understand the direct consequence of this legislation on those people it's designed to impact. We have a current situation where the minister doesn't want to engage with small business or do a regulatory impact statement. And, even worse, when she's asked how many small businesses in this country are going to be affected, she cannot answer the simple question. It's a simple expectation. You've got legislation. You're trying to effect change. You're claiming it's positive, so tell me how many small businesses in this nation these laws will have an effect on.

Long debate text truncated.

Carina Garland

I'm really proud to speak on this important legislation. The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 is delivering on our key election commitment to protect penalty rates, and this is legislation that Australians overwhelmingly supported at the last election. The intent of this bill is simple. If you are a worker who relies on the modern award safety net and you work weekends, public holidays, early mornings or late nights, then this Albanese Labor government believes that you deserve to have your wages protected. We believe that you deserve laws that ensure that pay will not go backwards. That's why it is so important that, as one of the very first orders of business, we're delivering for workers. This will mean a lot to workers in my electorate of Chisholm and for workers right across Australia.

I'm really proud that in our first term during the 47th Parliament, the Albanese government delivered landmark workplace relations reforms with a clear goal, which was to get wages moving again for Australian workers.

We addressed and closed loopholes that undermined principles of fairness and improved access to secure jobs and better pay. We reinvigorated enterprise bargaining and, significantly, put gender equality at the heart of workplace relations. We improved workplace conditions and protections right across the board. And in every single wage review since taking office we have backed, unapologetically—in fact, proudly—minimum wage increases.

A very important memory for me will always be the moment I stood with the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, when he was asked during the 2022 election campaign whether he supported a $1 pay rise for Australia's lowest-paid workers, and he said—famously, now—'Absolutely.' At the time, and I think it's important that we remember this, he was criticised roundly by those opposite for making such a claim. Well, our government, our Prime Minister, has been backing in pay rises for Australia's lowest-paid workers ever since, with the support of the Australian community. And of course in our most recent submission to the Fair Work Commission we called for an economically sustainable real-wage increase for workers on the minimum wage. This side of the House is really pleased that from 1 July minimum wages have been increased by 3.5 per cent.

These are significant reforms, and we've fought hard to deliver them. Labor governments will always support workers to receive fair pay and decent conditions. We know that our changes to legislation are being felt by workers in our communities and are delivering improved outcomes, not just for workers but also for their employers. These are really important outcomes that are significant for people in my electorate of Chisholm. These are outcomes that have resulted in thousands of workers receiving up to $60,000 extra in their pay packets each year. One of the greatest joys in my job—and I've mentioned this before, in other speeches to this place—has been to visit some of our frontline service workers. We know that many of our frontline service workers in this country are reliant on minimum wages. I'm proud that I can always look them in the eye and tell them we're doing our very best in this place to ensure that they receive the wage increases they deserve.

It is disappointing—a great shame—that those opposite have not taken the opportunity to support some of our hardest-working, lowest-paid workers. Our government has always advocated to the Fair Work Commission for minimum and award wage rises—every single year since we were elected in 2002. That is quite a contrast to when those opposite sat on the treasury benches and put wage stagnation and low wages at the centre of their economic policy. I think that is a real shame for this country.

Labor governments want to see wages increase and to see workers being valued for all they do in our communities. Since we've come to government we've reinvigorated our bargaining system, which means employers and workers can reach agreements in workplaces that do result in higher wages through negotiation and receive better conditions and better productivity. We've ensured that gender equality and job security have become new objects in the Fair Work Act. We've banned pay secrecy clauses. We've criminalised intentional wage theft and we've stopped the underpayment of workers through the labour hire loophole. We've introduced world-leading minimum standards for road transport workers. We've ended the forced permanent casual loophole—which does seem like an oxymoron, but it was the way many workplaces functioned in this country for too long. And we've provided a proper pathway for conversion for casuals who do want that. We've also given workers a right to clock off through the right to disconnect.

It's important to understand, too, that more than half of employers who responded to a recent Australian HR Institute survey have indicated that Labor's right-to-disconnect laws have in fact improved employee engagement and productivity. Worker wellbeing is important to productivity in this country. The latest figures on enterprise bargaining show that nearly 2.7 million Australians are now covered by a current enterprise agreement, which is the highest coverage on record since the system began. Importantly, our laws are working to deliver real wage increases, improved conditions and more cooperative and productive workplaces.

We are continuing that work with this bill, which will protect penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards. Penalty rates and overtime rates do matter. They are a longstanding feature and a vital part of the modern award safety net which supports some of Australia's lowest-paid workers. We know that, right now, the safety net can unfortunately be undermined. Under current rules, penalty rates and overtime rates can be rolled up into a single rate of pay that leaves employees worse off. I would hope that no-one in this place would like to see employees worse off in this country. We know that there are current cases on foot where employers in the retail, clerical and banking sectors have made applications to the Fair Work Commission to trade away penalty rates of lower-paid workers on awards. Sadly, we know that the coalition have always been too willing to back these kinds of positions. We on this side of the House take a very different approach, really wanting to back in fairness for Australian workers. We know that people put their faith in a Labor government to be custodians of the Australian workplace relations system and to look out for workers' best interests, especially where clear and obvious gaps exist.

This bill here before the House is about making sure that we are taking action to ensure that the best interests of workers is at the heart of our workplace relations system. This legislation will mean that proposals, as I mentioned earlier, to undermine worker pay cannot be included in modern awards. It's really ensuring that the safety net remains. We are going to protect the penalty rates and overtime rates of low-paid workers and enshrine protections for penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards. In practical terms, this will mean workers won't have to worry about that safety net. We have done this because Labor governments are committed to strengthening the modern award system without adding unnecessary complexity. The bill will not stop parties engaging in ways to make awards easier or from ensuring that award terms can be adaptable to modern working needs.

We want this legislation passed as a top priority, which is why we're here in week 2 of the sitting weeks of parliament and this has been introduced. This is really important. We need to do all we can to protect workers from loopholes that could see their take-home pay go backwards. Modern awards are so important in providing entitlements such as pay, hours of work, rosters, breaks, penalty rates and overtime. We really want to protect those gains and ensure that the safety net of minimum wages and entitlements for Australian lowest-paid workers is maintained. We know that people who are covered by these awards are more likely to be women, work part time, be under 35 and also often be employed on a casual basis. So these are marginalised workers as well that we are seeking to ensure are protected.

This is a very important piece of legislation. We, of course, respect the role of the Fair Work Commission as an independent industrial tribunal. They are the umpire. That role is unchanged under this legislation. What we want to see is enterprise agreements deliver better deals for working people, better wages and conditions and more cooperative and productive workplaces. Our government has really been focused on reinvigorating the enterprise bargaining system such that we now have a record-high number of employees covered by federal enterprise agreements, and we are already seeing that these agreements are delivering real wage increases for Australian workers.

As of 31 March this year, the Fair Work Commission approved over 9,800 agreements covering nearly 2.5 million employees. Also as of 31 March this year, almost 2.7 million employees were covered by a current enterprise agreement, which is the highest coverage since bargaining began in 1991.

Ultimately this bill is about fairness. It is about respecting the millions of Australians, including thousands in my electorate of Chisholm, who work public holidays, weekends, late nights and early mornings to keep Australia going. In this spirit, I commend the bill to the House.

Long debate text truncated.

Long debate text truncated.

Ted O'Brien

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

The Member for Fairfax making a statement of no more than 15 minutes in relation to the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy's interim report into the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.

What is it about the Labor Party, when they want to gag debate on nuclear energy—

Milton Dick

Order! The member for Fairfax will resume his seat.

The member for Kingsford Smith is interjecting outside of his seat, so he'll cease interjecting. I call the Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

Thanks, Mr Speaker. When we were on this item earlier, I made it clear, when you asked me, that we would in fact return to it. So we'll be able to return, and there will be a motion to which he'll be able to make whatever speech he wants.

Milton Dick

Does the member wish to proceed under that information provided to the House?

Ted O'Brien

I would like to proceed, if that is alright.

Milton Dick

You may.

Ted O'Brien

I want to proceed with this debate, as Labor MPs leave the chamber—yet again afraid to have a debate about Australia's energy future. If I were Labor, I, too, would be leaving in shame, because every MP in this chamber on the Labor side of the House promised their constituents a $275 reduction in household power bills, including the minister, whose own constituents are now set to pay $1,300 more than he promised them.

This inquiry has been an important one, and there's a reason why this Labor government set up an inquiry that has been a political stitch-up from the very get-go—a political stitch-up by way of the members constituting that committee. In fact, as a very rare occasion in this parliament, we have the crossbench, including the Greens and the teals, supporting the coalition on a motion to bring balance to that committee because it was so poorly skewed in favour of the Labor Party because they wanted to manipulate the process in order to have a go. Also, the terms of reference were narrow so the Labor Party could try to get across its political points.

But, of course, as it transpired during the inquiry, we heard evidence after evidence coming from Australian and international experts which said, 'If you add nuclear to a balanced energy mix, the prices come down.' That has been the evidence right across the world. It is why Australia is now isolated—the only nation in the G20 that is either not using nuclear energy or not moving towards using it in the near future.

The Department of Energy in the United States made it very clear in their own report: there's a 37 per cent reduction in costs compared to a renewables-only scheme if you have nuclear in the mix. The independent report from Frontier Economics here in the Australian context did a similar study, a total system cost analysis, that proved the coalition's plan to get to a 2050 zero emissions grid is actually 44 per cent cheaper than Labor's. But Labor ignores all this. Labor don't want to have a debate, which is why they seek to gag this debate today.

On timing, again we heard evidence after evidence in the committee that the timing put forward by the coalition for introducing zero emissions nuclear energy in Australia was accurate and it was doable. In fact, we had the Albanese government's own advisers on nuclear technology. Their view with respect to small modular reactors is that they have an expected deployment timeframe of around five years from construction start to electricity or heat generation—that's the Albanese government's own advisers. The committee report itself, written by the chair, the member for Hunter, actually ignores that advice. It also ignores the advice of Professor Andrew Whittaker, who has advised the White House in the United States on nuclear energy. He says that, when it comes to timing, it should take five to 10 years to build a plant with two-gigawatt-scale reactors in Australia, taking advantage of the lessons learned. Again, whether it be costs, whether it be timing, the inquiry bore this out. The experts, globally and domestically, basically said the coalition's plan is based on international best practice. But they want to ignore this.

The chair of the inquiry, the member for Hunter, stood up earlier in this parliament, before they gagged the coalition, to claim that the real problem with nuclear is the speed at which coal plants are coming out of the grid. As somebody who has seen him in the coal communities and in this parliament can I remind that member that his constituents have two very different members. When we sat in coal communities across regional Australia, the chair of this inquiry, the member for Hunter, on multiple occasions denied Labor's plan to close coal plants prematurely. It's all in Hansard__. Loy Yang, the latest, goes all the way through into the mid- to late 2040s. He said: 'No, no, no. It will be allowed to proceed, of course, all the way through until the end of its life.' Yet the inquiry report drafted by the chair himself, the member for Hunter, makes clear that all coal plants are closed by 2038.

Under Labor's plan 10.8 gigawatts of coal generation will be exiting the grid over the next 10 years without replacement. That's before the scheduled closure, according to the coal plant owners. The member comes into this place and tries to argue that the coal plants are going to be closed early, but back at home he tells a very different story. Again, you have to look at what Labor's policies really are and what their impacts are, rather than listen to what comes out of the mouths of those opposite depending on different situations. We heard from regional communities—from Muswellbrook, for example. That is a community the member for Hunter should know very well. The former mayor of Muswellbrook, Steven Reynolds, told the inquiry:

… a replacement of a power station here—

referring to nuclear energy—

would see jobs being transferred into a familiar role whilst retaining the permanent well-paying jobs.

The Latrobe City Council Mayor, Dale Harriman, said:

I know I talk regularly to a number of coal power station workers. They're excited by this idea that they're actually going to have a future … The discussion now that nuclear is there and it gives an option to our coal-fired power station workers—that there is a future that pays like-for-like jobs—they're very, very supportive of it. I think, as a community, that's something we've been asking for: those jobs that are like for like.

Keep in mind, of course, that studies by the Department of Energy in the United States have explained that around 77 per cent of coal plant workers can transition to work in a nuclear power plant without any change to their occupation, seamlessly so, which is why these communities which are being shut down—regional economies being hollowed out by the premature closure of coal-fired power stations with no replacement on the way from the Labor Party—are screaming out for a future.

Our proposal, which is a balanced energy mix—a future which will have renewables, gas and, as coal eventually does retire from the system, zero emissions nuclear energy—gives these regional communities the future they deserve. The two I just quoted, the Hunter and La Trobe, are regional powerhouses that have underpinned energy security for generations in this country.

The Labor Party's plan is to hollow them out. They want to turn boilermakers into baristas. That's their plan; that is how shallow their plan is. We don't agree with that. We believe in regional Australia. We believe these communities have a bright future. And that is why we are interested in introducing zero emissions power plants, plants that will be designed to last for 60 to 80 years—maybe, with extensions, up to a hundred years.

We're talking about a plan that allows for regional deals to ensure that transport infrastructure and community infrastructure can be built in these communities. We're talking about integrated economic development zones so we can ensure these communities are rich when it comes to manufacturing, when it comes to mineral processing and when it comes to high technology, because they will have the cheapest, cleanest and most consistent power in the country. But the Labor Party refuse to have a conversation. They gag debate. They're into memes and untruths about this plan because they know there's a reason why our friends and allies around the world are adopting nuclear energy as part of a balanced energy mix. It's because it gets prices down, it is the fastest way to decarbonise an electricity grid, and it guarantees security—all the things that this Labor Party has promised the Australian people and failed on. Today it's no surprise that they have, yet again, sought to gag debate.

Steve Georganas

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Simon Kennedy

I second the motion. Labor's energy plan is off the rails. It's gone woke and it's sending companies broke. I firmly believe Labor's plan to reach net zero is unrealistic. It's a plan for higher prices, rolling blackouts and environmental damage. Labor's plan is just for higher household energy bills, and we see it. We see it in the bills that have gone up to $1,000 since they've entered office, and, with the new plan passed, we will see bills rise a further $300 more next financial year. And why? We now know Labor's plan, which it previously touted at $122 billion, will actually cost $642 billion.

This is a number that the government does not dispute, and there's still north in that figure of $642 billion. It excludes Snowy Hydro, Orana and a whole host of other projects. It excludes consumer energy costs such as batteries and solar. This is why Australians are paying a thousand dollars more and will pay, as I said, up to $300 more next financial year. Yet we watch them high-fiving over that $150 subsidy and talking about the relief they're wreaking for everyday Australians. We watched them high-fiving over these subsidies when we watched Whyalla Steelworks close, because businesses are going broke. And it's not just big businesses like Whyalla Steelworks; it's small and medium manufacturers, small boilermakers, machine workers and shop workers. This plan is not realistic and it's not fit-for-purpose; it's intermittent energy and higher prices.

Let's take onshore wind as an example. Onshore wind will need to increase to five gigawatts a year to meet their 2030 target. Is that realistic? Guess what—we have not produced more than one gigawatt a year to date. Do we think we can increase by 500 per cent the amount of offshore wind to meet their targets? Actually, offshore wind has been decreasing. Yet we're meant to believe this magic pudding plan that, somehow, it will increase by 500 per cent. Labor also assumes hydrogen power will become available in the 2040s. This is despite Origin and Twiggy Forrest walking away from it and no leading country in the world planning on hydrogen to be a significant part of their energy mix. Yet there it is in the AEMO step change and Labor's plan. We're banking on hydrogen. It also says gas should increase by 50 per cent. That's Labor's own plan. Yet they're not approving further gas. We are not approving it. This is why this will send this country broke. It's because we've gone woke.

Labor's plan also predates artificial intelligence. It predates blockchain and all these energy-intensive industries. That is why we've seen Google, Microsoft and Meta all investing in this sector. This is why we've heard evidence from the Minerals Council of Australia that it's negligent. This is why we heard from Dr Chris Greig from Princeton, who worked on Australia's and America's net zero plans and gave evidence. The Daily Telegraph called it 'not even close' in the article 'Leading scientist's scathing review of Australia's net zero progress'. This is someone who actually promotes net zero in both Australia and America.

Further, our continued prohibition stands in stark contrast to the rest of the world. Twenty-five countries in COP28, including the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear capacity, but not Australia. Embarrassingly, they actually announced that Australia would be part of this and would be sharing research with the US and UK. But, embarrassingly, our government trotted someone out there to say that we'd be withdrawing from an agreement where they would voluntarily share intel and research with us to help us decarbonise our grid and lower prices. We backed out of it—pathetic. Even the former chief scientist of South Australia gave evidence saying that we should be looking at nuclear, and she had no hope that we could get to a decarbonised grid or lower prices without nuclear. We heard expert after expert over these weeks. I'm new to parliament. I actually thought this would be an inquiry where we got together, we looked at it and we talked about it but, instead, what we had was an inquiry with a majority of Labor members who actually wrote a report. We proposed amendments, none of which were considered, none of which were debated, all of which were rejected in about 10 minutes. Therefore, we had no option left but to put together a dissenting report to try and help Australian businesses, to try and help Australian households, make ends meet. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas

Before the member takes his seat, you need to formally second the motion.

Simon Kennedy

I formally second the motion.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

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