Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

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

For votes: Spender, Labour, Coalition.  

Against votes: Greens.

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

Max Chandler-Mather

I move:

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

(1) notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) calls on the Government to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julian Leeser

What about the hostages?

Phillip Thompson

Shut up.

Max Chandler-Mather

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

Steve Georganas

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Adam Bandt

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Wallace

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

Steve Georganas

I ask members to put their thoughts through the chair.

Long debate text truncated.)

Mr Burke - I move: That the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.

For votes: Spender, Labor, Green  

Against votes: Coalition.

Peter Dutton

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that in the course of question time on 15 August 2024, the Prime Minister purported to quote statements made by the Director-General of ASIO, Mr Mike Burgess, in a recent interview on Insiders;

(b) that the Prime Minister's purported quote specifically omitted key words with the effect of changing the fundamental meaning of Mr Burgess' statements; and

(c) that as a consequence the House was given an incorrect understanding that all visa applicants from Gaza are the subject of an ASIO assessment, whereas in fact this only occurs 'where criteria are hit';

(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to immediately attend the Chamber and speak for up to 15 minutes to explain:

(a) which visa applicants are the subject of a security assessment by ASIO;

(b) what are the criteria for ASIO to carry out a security assessment in relation to visa applicants from the Gaza war zone;

(c) how many of the almost 3,000 visas already issued by the Government were granted without an ASIO security assessment; and

(d) whether the House can have any confidence that under this Government's processes, there is a proper and thorough security assessment of all visa applicants from the Gaza war zone to determine whether the applicant would present a security threat to the Australian community; and

(3) resolves that no other business be considered until the Prime Minister undertakes the action requested in (2).

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith—That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that in the course of question time on 15 August 2024, the Prime Minister purported to quote statements made by the Director-General of ASIO, Mr Mike Burgess, in a recent interview on Insiders;

(b) that the Prime Minister's purported quote specifically omitted key words with the effect of changing the fundamental meaning of Mr Burgess' statements; and

(c) that as a consequence the House was given an incorrect understanding that all visa applicants from Gaza are the subject of an ASIO assessment, whereas in fact this only occurs 'where criteria are hit';

(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to immediately attend the Chamber and speak for up to 15 minutes to explain:

(a) which visa applicants are the subject of a security assessment by ASIO;

(b) what are the criteria for ASIO to carry out a security assessment in relation to visa applicants from the Gaza war zone;

(c) how many of the almost 3,000 visas already issued by the Government were granted without an ASIO security assessment; and

(d) whether the House can have any confidence that under this Government's processes, there is a proper and thorough security assessment of all visa applicants from the Gaza war zone to determine whether the applicant would present a security threat to the Australian community; and

(3) resolves that no other business be considered until the Prime Minister undertakes the action requested in (2).

It's clear to every Australian that the Prime Minister has misled this parliament and has misled the Australian public. He didn't have the ability, the determination or the strength to come in here last week and answer these serious claims, and he's missing in action again today. This parliament has now sat for two hours today, and the Prime Minister should have come in here at the ringing of the bells to correct the record—to explain to the Australian public and to this parliament why he misled them in that fashion last week.

It's one thing to come into this parliament and to quote from a document. The Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to do that, as is any member. You might leave out a sentence for the purposes of brevity or to make a point, but you can't leave out the middle of one sentence that you're quoting and pretend that that is an accurate reflection of what has been said by the person you are quoting. It's beyond tricky; it's duplicitous.

This Prime Minister walks both sides of the street. The Australian public know that. The Australian public clearly are disappointed in this Prime Minister. We get that. He's made wrong decisions in relation to the renewables-only policy, which has driven up the price of energy and now the prospect of blackouts. We have a Prime Minister who has presided over different policies, including in housing and migration, that have made it harder for Australians to buy homes. We have young Australians who have lost the dream of homeownership because of the government's policy to bring in a million people over two years when they only build a quarter of a million homes. We have a Prime Minister who is walking both sides of the street, telling the Jewish community one thing and the Muslim community something completely different. He's telling the Indigenous community one thing in relation to the makarrata commission, which he has purposefully redesigned now to mean something else, even though there's money in the budget for a makarrata commission. So he's telling the Indigenous population one thing and the non-Indigenous population something other than what he's telling the first group. He walks into one room and says, 'This is the fact of this matter.' He walks into the adjoining room and tells the opposite to the group there. It is no wonder that people's disappointment has turned into dismay when it comes to Prime Minister Albanese.

In relation to this issue, it doesn't get any more serious than an allegation of a misleading of this parliament and the Australian public by the Prime Minister of our country. This is not a concocted outrage or some interpretation of a quote. It's a completely and utterly scandalous approach by the Prime Minister, and he can't come to this chamber. I've watched seven prime ministers, who have come from both sides of this parliament, and I have never seen a circumstance where a prime minister of the day is accused of misleading this parliament and doesn't have the strength of character to come down here and to argue his corner—because he knows he's done the wrong thing.

The obligation under the standing orders and the practice of this place means that the Prime Minister at the first available opportunity needed to correct the record. Mr Speaker, as you would recall, I raised with you during the course of question time, when it was brought to my attention, the fact that the Prime Minister had selectively misquoted the director-general of ASIO. I don't believe that the Prime Minister has a leg to stand on here, and that's why he's not coming into this chamber. What it says, every hour that ticks by now where the Prime Minister doesn't come to this chamber, is that he can't be honest with the Australian public.

We know that the Australian public believes that our country is heading in the wrong direction under the Albanese government. This government has made decisions which have not helped Australians but harmed Australians. Up until this point, it has been in relation to economic matters. People's grocery prices have gone through the roof under this government. The price that they're paying for insurance has gone through the roof. For their mortgage, interest rates have gone up 12 times, whilst interest rates are falling in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.

The government has made wrong decisions, but, up until now, we haven't seen examples of decisions made by this government which have made our country less safe, except, of course, for Minister Giles's actions when he released 152 hardcore criminals who were noncitizens and had committed crimes against citizens—rape, paedophilia, armed robbery and murder. In error, the then minister released those people into the Australian community, and—you wouldn't believe it—they went on to commit more crimes. Who would have thought? The tragedy of that reality is that there is a human being, there is an Australian citizen who is a victim, behind each one of those crimes. We should never forget the face of that elderly lady in Perth who fell victim very early to one of these individuals.

Minister Giles has decided to bring people in on tourist visas from a war zone which is controlled by a listed terrorist organisation. The Prime Minister got up here and said to us that everyone had been checked through the ASIO process. They have not been. The selective quoting, by leaving out those words that Mr Burgess had given to David Speers over on Insiders, served the misrepresentation and backed up the position of the Prime Minister, which turned out to be false.

If you bring people in on a tourist visa, it's like coming from the United States, from New Zealand or from other parts of the world where a visa is issued automatically. It's issued automatically without the checks and balances of somebody who would come here through the refugee and humanitarian program. The Prime Minister said to the Australian public that what they had done as a government under Minister Giles, by bringing people here on tourist visas, was akin to, or a replication of, what we had done when we brought people into Australia from Syria.

The complete opposite is the case. We brought people here through the refugee and humanitarian program. It didn't take 24 hours to get a visa, as it does if you're a tourist. It took in some cases 12 months because we had to collect biometrics. We had to collect all of that information to check against databases. The Prime Minister will have you believe that somehow that's what happened here. It's not.

Let's look very quickly at what went towards covering up the fact of his mistake—the egregious and potentially very consequential mistake that he has made here. Let's look at what Mr Burgess said. He said they've gone through a visa process:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process. Part of that visa process is, where criteria hit, they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

The Prime Minister missed those words: 'visa process is where criteria hit', and that is essentially undermining the credibility of this Prime Minister.

This Prime Minister has lost his integrity, he has lost his credibility, he has let down the Australian public, he has made us less safe, he is the weakest leader in our country's history and Australians are suffering because of it—not just economically and not just financially. This Prime Minister has now weakened the security settings in our country and he should be here defending himself.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Dan Tehan

The motion is seconded. I didn't think that we'd get to this stage, but this is where we've got to. We've got to the fact that the prime minister now is as hopeless and hapless as the previous minister for immigration. As a matter of fact, they are peas in a pod. If you think about what has happened and the track record of both now, they're exactly the same

The former minister for immigration let 152 detainees out on the street and then came into this place and said they had all been issued with visas and had conditions placed on them. Then what did we find out down the track? That hadn't happened. FOIs showed us that some of them—and as the Leader of the Opposition has said, hardened criminals, murderers, sex offenders, child sex offenders—had been released without visas and without conditions placed on them. Did the Prime Minister, when he knew about that, require the former minister for immigration to come in here and admit that he had misled this parliament? No, he didn't. And now we know why, because if he had required him to do that, he would be in here today doing exactly the same thing. Yet where is he? Where is he? No-one knows. And what has he been accused of? It is not just misleading the parliament in some form, which is sort of irrelevant. What he has done is he has misquoted the director-general of ASIO. How can you not quote the director-general of ASIO in the correct form and think that you can get away with it? I'm glad the new minister for immigration is here because I hope to hell, for the Australian people's sake, that he isn't as hopeless and hapless as the previous minister for immigration and the prime minister.

Let's look at what the prime minister has done. He was asked a very simple question, which goes to the No. 1 priority of this government: was everyone who came into this country from the Gaza war zone properly given a security check—every single one of them? And the prime minister said, 'Yes, they had.' Now we know that is not the case, and there is nothing that the new minister for immigration can show us or prove to say that what the Prime Minister has said was correct. The Prime Minister stands condemned today, the former minister for immigration stands condemned today, and what we will wait to hear now is whether the new minister for immigration has any explanation for two things. The first is: where is the Prime Minister and why won't he come and defend his honour? Because he knows he's wrong. He knows he has misled this place. The second thing we want to hear from the new immigration minister is: what was done to make sure that Australians are going to be kept safe from the people that have come in from the Gaza war zone? If we don't hear answers to those two things, then you might as well not get up and say anything.

The other thing that will be very interesting to see while you're here defending the Prime Minister is whether the Prime Minister will come in to listen to the new minister for immigration defend him. Will he? Do you reckon he will? What do you think? I've got a feeling that the PM won't turn up. He'll stay in his office watching on the television because he's gutless. He won't come in here and defend himself. That is weakness at its worst and that is why he stands condemned today.

Long debate text truncated.

Kate Chaney

I move the amendment on sheet 2 as circulated in my name:

(1)   Schedule 1, Parts 7 and 8, page 23 (line 1) to page 44 (line 25), omit the Parts.

I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes schedules 7 and 8 from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.

I've already spoken at length about my concerns with schedules 7 and 8. In summary, first, I'm not convinced that the ministerial power to implement caps is about quality, integrity or sustainable growth of the sector. I'm concerned that it's in response to our domestic housing crisis; reducing the number of international students will, at least theoretically, free up some accommodation. Second, I've heard significant concerns from universities about how the application of these drastic powers will affect the sector. Universities rely on fees from international students to fund research and development capabilities. More than half of the financial investment in Australian research is funded by international students. Third, I'm worried about the ramifications for our international reputation and our economy. Given that education services are our fourth-largest export, changing the rules will affect education providers, students and their families. Education is a globally competitive market. Creating this level of uncertainty will mean that students will choose to study their chosen course in Canada, the US or New Zealand instead of here.

There's broad support for schedules 1 to 6 of this bill, and I believe they contain good measures to improve the quality and integrity of our education sector. But I urge the government to reconsider the damaging effect of schedules 7 and 8 and remove these schedules from the bill. I commend the amendment to the House.

Jason Clare

I thank the member for Curtin for her amendment and for her engagement on this bill. The government is not able to support this amendment. As I said a moment ago in reply in this debate, we need to set up the international education sector for success. Part of that is making sure we protect the integrity of the system, which is what the first part of the bill does, and the second part is about protecting its social licence to operate. That involves providing certainty for universities and having a mechanism in place to promote sustainable growth over time. It's important that we have the tools necessary to do that. That's what these parts of the bill are all about.

Milton Dick

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

Zoe Daniel

I move:

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Sunsetting of Parts 7 and 8 of Schedule 1

(1) Despite item 53 of Schedule 1, the amendments made by Part 7 of Schedule 1 do not apply in relation to the 2027 calendar year and later calendar years.

(2) Despite item 56 of Schedule 1, the amendments made by Part 8 of Schedule 1 cease to apply after the end of the 2-year period starting at the commencement of that Part.

I am yet to be convinced that the volume of foreign students coming to Australia is the core of the problem that the government is trying to solve here, that they are the primary cause of the housing and rental crises currently besetting our country and causing so much hardship to so many. Nor am I convinced that, even if that is a major problem, this legislation is the way to solve it. Overseas student numbers collapsed during COVID, understandably, and now it seems to me that we're seeing a temporary spike as numbers recover. In the normal course of events, vice chancellors have suggested to me that it may well be numbers return to normal in a very short period. So if there is a perceived and temporary issue with the number of people entering the country, there's an easy fix, which is to make sure that the legislation operates only for a limited period. As I said in my second reading speech, I have been in discussions with the minister to add a sunset clause to the legislation to allow it to lapse once it has achieved the government's short-term goal. Unfortunately, the government has decided not to support this amendment despite support from the tertiary sector. The minister's advisers say they sympathise with the concept but it's too difficult to implement.

As it stands, the legislation grounds extraordinary powers to the minister—for example, to impose total enrolment limits by legislative instrument and to impose total enrolment limits by notice to the provider. Then there's the real sledgehammer—additional provisions to allow the minister to impose enrolment limits on individual courses by legislative instrument or by notice to the provider.

As it stands, the legislation grants extraordinary powers to the minister, for example, to impose total enrolment limits by legislative instrument and to impose total enrolment limits by notice to the provider. Then—the real sledgehammer—there are additional provisions to allow the minister to impose enrolment limits on individual courses by legislative instrument or by notice to the provider.

This is just too much power in the hands of one minister, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment just proposed by my colleague the member for North Syndey to remove that provision. Meanwhile, I'm offering a sunset clause of two years that would enable the government to get over what it sees as an immediate but one-off problem. It would also give the sector certainty that the extraordinary powers granted to the minister would not be used in unacceptable ways by a future incumbent. This parliament simply should not leave such overwhelming powers in the hands of one person given its potential impact on what has been an Australian success story.

Control over individual courses ought to be the responsibility of the individual institutions and not imposed by a minister. We have already seen the damage done by the previous government with its job-ready program, designed to make some university courses less attractive than others by, for instance, more than doubling student contributions to a three-year humanities degree, from $20,000 to more than $43,000—an increase of 113 per cent. Despite this price signal, Australia's largest universities earlier this year reported a jump in applications for arts degrees, leading to higher enrolments. It is this sort of meddling, therefore, that has already proved counterproductive.

The government acknowledged to me that it might have been a different story if the Australian tertiary education authority had already been up and running. I offered suggestions to address this conundrum. They were considered but rejected. Perhaps it would have been the case that, had the government seen its way clearly, the presence of my amendment might have given them cause to get a wriggle on and actually see the authority established. I do suspect that, if the minister had been the ultimate decision-maker, a sunset clause would have seen the light of day—to mix the metaphor.

I would say that not all universities are against this legislation. I acknowledge that, but vice-chancellors from the universities of Monash and Melbourne—many Goldstein students attend those—who I have met with personally entirely disagree with it. I certainly do not want to be involved in creating a situation where students in Goldstein cannot get a place at a university anywhere near where they live because of arbitrary caps imposed under this legislation. I commend the amendment to the House.

Jason Clare

I thank the member for Goldstein for her contribution to the debate and the amendments that she has brought forward here. I also thank her for convening a meeting of members of the crossbench and me in the last sitting.

These amendments seek to sunset parts 7 and 8 after two years. I have discussed this with the member in those meetings and with a number of other members of the crossbench and can say publicly what I've flagged privately—that the government is looking at how we might transition these powers to an appropriate independent body such as the Australian tertiary education commission, once it is established. That was flagged in a discussion paper that was released recently about the Australian tertiary education commission. Obviously, it has not been established yet and the detailed design work on what that commission should look like and what it should do is being developed as we speak.

The member has raised this concept with me, and I'm very happy to keep discussing this with her and other members of the crossbench in the House and in the Senate and looking at what provisions might be able to be put in the bill or in the explanatory memorandum to point to this. That said, though, at this point in time we're not in a position to support the amendment.

Milton Dick

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

Kylea Tink

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 6 to 10), omit the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5.

(2) Schedule 1, item 46, page 23 (lines 16 to 26), omit the item, substitute:

46 Section 15A (after the paragraph beginning "Division 1 contains")

Insert:

(3) Schedule 1, item 47, page 29 (line 11) to page 34 (line 8), omit Subdivision C.

(4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 34 (lines 9 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

48 Section 83A (after the paragraph beginning "The ESOS agency")

Insert:

(5) Schedule 1, item 49, page 36 (line 4) to page 37 (line 20), omit section 96A.

(6) Schedule 1, item 50, page 37 (table item 13), omit the table item.

(7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 38 (line 5), omit "or 96A(6)".

(8) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 3 to 33), omit subitems (4) and (5).

I rise to speak to the amendments as circulated. As I said in my second reading speech, while many in North Sydney would support efforts to improve the quality, integrity and sustainability of our tertiary and advanced education sector, we're concerned this piece of legislation conflates a variety of issues and uses them to confer unprecedented powers on both the current and future education ministers.

Importantly, under the guise of fixing the integrity of the international students sector, we're concerned government overreach, as seen in this bill, risks undermining what is currently the second most profitable export sector in our economy. Specifically, the ministerial power to introduce student caps at the course level is unprecedented, with no other major export industry currently subject to such extraordinary micro-level powers.

The amendment I'm moving seeks to remove the ministerial power to set caps at the course level, instead allowing for caps at the provider level only. The reason I believe this amendment is required is that ministerial intervention at the course level is a dangerous overreach that would have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice.

To be clear, universities already deliver education under strict and mature regulatory and funding arrangements. And because they're increasingly asked to deliver graduates in line with Australia's skills needs, based on advice from agencies including Jobs and Skills Australia, a ministerial intervention at the course level could have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice.

Capping international student numbers altogether is one thing; setting them with respect to specific courses is another. It not only poses a serious threat to the operation of a vital sector; it sends a message of lust—I'm sorry, it sends a message of lack of trust in a free market that is the direct result of consecutive governments stepping back from funding. And I'm sure there are plenty of other markets lusting after our education sector!

Ultimately, surely the question we must ask is: why would we think, as much as we trust this education minister, that any education minister is best placed to make decisions like these? The fact there is no requirement for the minister to consult before issuing a notice to limit international students at a particular institution is also concerning. In addition to this, the rushed nature of these changes means that education providers are stepping into them blindly. Providers could soon negotiate international student caps on courses without even knowing what the guidelines, regulations or skills priorities will be and with no line of sight over the courses that may be subject to caps.

A large university in my electorate informed me that they have a major concern that these new measures have been introduced with little warning and, to date, little consultation, with the only effort they've seen coming just a few days before the bill was introduced to parliament. The government says they're committed to working closely with the sector, yet the fact the sector is concerned about the lack of consultation to date does not bode well.

Education providers tell me that managing international student enrolment numbers at a course level for approximately 1,400 higher education institutions will create an immense administrative burden for both the government and universities. They have explained how caps would limit student choice, which could be detrimental to the entire sector. Ultimately, our tertiary education providers operate in a global market and demand driven system, underpinned by student choice. Restrictions placed on student choice risk reputational damage and undermine the decades of work that both the sector and the consecutive governments have done to establish Australia as a world-class provider of international education.

It's clear there's more work to do on this legislation to ensure the right settings are in place to bring certainty, stability and growth to this critically important sector. Rather than let the major parties use this bill to target international students in a bid to slash migration in what can only be seen as a poll-driven war on the cost of living and housing, we have to do what's right by the sector. The future of this sector, our economic productivity and our society more broadly require us to take the passing of this legislation seriously. I commend this amendment to the House as a way of delivering a more targeted approach with measured ministerial powers rather than the extraordinary overreach currently in the bill.

Max Chandler-Mather

While there are a number of amendments from the crossbench to this bill that the Greens will be supporting, including this one, and that do improve the bill somewhat, for us this remains a terrible bill. We want to outline that the Greens oppose international student caps remaining in the bill in any form. Capping international student numbers is bad policy and it makes a dishonest conflation between international students, migration and the housing and cost-of-living crises. This will do nothing to fix our education policy or university sector or to help deal with the housing or cost-of-living crises.

Jason Clare

I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing forward this amendment. She's right: trust is important. And she raises an important issue here about the structure and operation of this bill specifically as it relates to courses. It's something about which I'm having discussions with stakeholders, both universities and those outside the university sector, at the moment. It's been part of the discussions that have been taking place since I introduced the bill in May of this year. It's important that we get this right. That's why that consultation is important. I am also looking forward to seeing what the Senate Education and Employment Committee has to say in its recommendations in response to some of the issues you have raised in your contribution just then. So, whilst we're not in a position to support the amendment today, I am looking forward to continuing that work with the sector, which I just pointed to, and with the crossbench, both here in the House and in the Senate, in the weeks ahead.

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

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

Milton Dick

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

Proposed amendment—

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House notes:

(1) that the former Government consistently delivered lower taxes for small business, families, and implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance;

(2) the Government voted eight times against delivering a bigger tax cut to small business in last year's instant asset write off;

(3) the Government's last multinational tax bill was so badly designed it taxed Australian companies;

(4) that since the election, Australians are paying 20 per cent more income tax and the Government has banked over $60 billion in bracket creep;

(5) that despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Government has broken promises to raise taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, personal income, tax, and to end small business tax incentives; and

(6) that the Government's housing policy is failing to meet its supply targets and supporting forever renting, not home ownership".

Milton Dick

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