I move:

That the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative-Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests) Methodology Determination 2026 made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 on 25 June 2026 and presented to the House on 29 June 2026, be disallowed.

This is a very simple motion. It seeks to prevent the federal and state Labor governments from stopping the destruction of native forestry industry on the altar of net zero. This is about jobs. This is about timber industry jobs and how the government wants to absolutely destroy them. And the worst thing is, they want to do it without being upfront about it. This is another sneaky way of hurting jobs in this nation, and especially jobs in rural and regional Australia. It has to stop.

What have you got against regional and rural Australia? What have you got against timber worker jobs? We need these timber worker jobs. We need them. And not only that, we need the timber because the timber is sustainably harvested in this country. And do you know what happens when you close it down here? It all gets imported. And where does it get imported from? Those countries that don't sustainably harvest. That is what is occurring here, and the government should be up front about it. That is why we have moved this disallowance motion. Enough with your pretence of trying to get to net zero. All you're doing is killing jobs and industry in this nation time after time after time after time, and we are going to oppose it every single step of the way.

The regulation, which was authorised by the member for Fremantle on 25 June 2026, allows state governments to cash in climate credits for forestry they have saved. So let's put what they've done into real language: when you lock up the timber industry, you're going to allow state governments to get the carbon credits from it. That's what you've done. Basically, the minister sitting here at the table, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, cannot meet his targets, will not meet his targets, but is quite happy to target timber workers for his net zero approach. That is what this is about. We will not stand here and allow this to happen.

The interesting thing about this is that we know that this is what this is all about, because the New South Wales state Labor government are the ones who've asked for it, with their Great Koala National Park—which they can't afford to pay for. We know this is going to lead to noxious weeds and feral animals in the farms adjacent to this state forest because the government will not finance and they will not fund the state parks around it. This is junk credit costing timber industry jobs. We will not sit here and allow it to happen.

If allowed to stand, the new regulation would see the cessation of commercial timber harvesting across entire regional forest agreement areas. These areas were negotiated in good faith so that timber jobs could stay in Australia. And yet this sneaky, underhanded way just seeks to undermine these agreements. We all know what will happen. One state government after another, Labor state governments will fold, and the timber industry will pay the price. The worst thing is it's not only the timber industries which will pay the price. Where will we get our timber from? We'll have to import it. Will it be sustainably harvested overseas?

This is the question that we want answered by the minister today. Let's hear him stand up today and say: 'All the timber that we begin importing as a result of my policies will be sustainably harvested. There'll be no issues, and it will all be done in the same way that we harvest timber here.' Let's hear him stand up and say that. It'll be a bit like his commitment that all batteries installed would be done safely and to all technical specifications. Did we get that guarantee? No, of course not. Will we get a guarantee on this? No, we will not.

Despite the fact that we are having this debate publicly in the parliament, understanding how this net zero regulation has come about has been cloaked in mystery. Work by the government to activate this net zero regulation began in 2024 by the Australian National University. Despite multiple FOI requests—why doesn't this surprise you? Remember, the sun was going to shine in, the Australian sun was going to shine in. Despite multiple FOI requests, which have been blocked, the modelling on which this regulation rests has never been released publicly. They believe in their cause so much, but of course they cannot release—

Yes, that's it! The consultation period for the enactment of this regulation ran over summer for just 28 days. There is no transparency. There's as much transparency on this as there is in the Capacity Investment Scheme. Of course, there is so much so much transparency around that one—billions and billions of dollars being locked away, and we get nothing from the government. There is no transparency.

I'm going to allow others to speak, because we've only got 40 minutes. I would like to go my full time, but I want to make sure there are others in the debate. These transparency issues are our substantial concern. First of all, it's net zero window dressing. Second, carbon leakage will increase. Third, and most importantly, is where those opposite should apologise today in this place. I don't think the minister has the word 'apology' in his vocabulary, but this is where he should apologise. This will cost forestry jobs. Not only that—it will hurt prime agriculture land.

NSW Farmers has raised that concerns the park declaration restricts private native forestry on adjacent private holdings and creates pest, weed and fire management risks. I saw the minister scoffing about this. It is creating a bad precedent, and that is why this House must oppose Labor's net zero zealotry.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion. We've just heard from a regional member of parliament who actually understands what a sustainable timber industry looks like. Throughout his speech, I saw many members opposite shaking their heads, occasionally laughing, but they represent seats where there's no timber industry. There are no plantations or a native hardwood timber sector in their communities. There are no forestry workers. There are no indirect jobs affected. They sit here and vote on issues that are a matter of economic and social life and death in my community and in the member for Wannon's, and they never take the time to understand the issue itself.

When it comes to timber, you have two simple choices. You use your own timber grown in your own country in a sustainable way, or you use someone else's timber. If you don't believe me, take a look at what the Victorian state government has done with its ban on the native hardwood timber industry. In Victoria we are still using everyone else's timber. In Victoria, look no further than the beautiful St Kilda Pier in Port Phillip Bay. Go to the Parks Victoria website. On the Parks Victoria website, they actually gush about the beautiful aesthetics of the hardwood timber decking as it curves around the bay, giving wonderful viewing opportunities for the people of Melbourne. Every piece of timber used on the decking on the St Kilda Pier is Darwin stringybark, brought to Victoria for a couple thousand kilometres of transport costs and the greenhouse emissions that go with that. That is the hypocrisy of Victorian Labor government.

There's not just one example. You can go for a little drive across the western suburbs to the West Gate Tunnel and out onto the Werribee Plain. There's a new structure on the freeway as you drive through the West Gate Tunnel and out the other side. I don't know when we got to a point where you need to have architectural works on the side of a freeway; I think they should just fix the roads. Anyway, there's this architectural structure there that's promoted on the Victoria's Big Build site, which describes the impact of the Indigenous people in western Victoria who used eel nets to capture eels. This huge timber structure that stretches across the freeway is meant to represent the Indigenous people and their eel nets. That timber was provided by Red Stag Timber in New Zealand. We're still using timber in Victoria; we're just importing it from New Zealand, Queensland or the Northern Territory.

The best one since the ban on native hardwood timber harvesting in Victoria is the Anzac Station on St Kilda Road. It's one of these examples of a tram and train interchange. It's a nice piece of engineering, I've got to admit. Go on the website there and read the description of this piece of work. It says it's 85 metres long and 23 metres wide. There's this timber canopy on St Kilda Road. May I say St Kilda Road is basically in the shadows of the Shrine of Remembrance just down the road. That beautiful timber canopy was made using spruce imported from Europe by a company called Hess Timber, housed in Germany. That is what the Victorian Labor Party has done to the native hardwood timber industry in our state. Two choices: use your own timber in a sustainable way, or take someone else's. The Victorian government has decided to keep taking someone else's.

Just 200 kilometres away from St Kilda Road in Victoria, there's a business called Australian Sustainable Hardwoods in my electorate of Gippsland. It's based in Heyfield. It employs more than 200 people. Despite all of the efforts of the Victorian Labor Party to shut them down, they have managed to survive. They are bringing in timber from interstate and overseas to compete against imported products in Victoria on a daily basis.

My interest in this issue is both personal and professional. I've had family members work in the timber industry in Gippsland for decades. I had one cousin killed in a logging accident when he was just 21 years old. My professional interest relates to the economic value of the timber industry and its importance to the future of my region, because the timber industry, and the native hardwood timber industry in particular, has social, economic, environmental and cultural importance to our community. If those opposite bothered to spend any time in a regional community, they would start to appreciate just a few of those elements.

The social elements are incredibly important because these are the communities where these people grew up. This is where their jobs have been and where they've added value to timber products. They've managed to build houses and provide the componentry for hardwood or for window framing. To people who live in the suburbs who say, 'I don't need timber; I don't like the forestry industry,' don't take your kids to an indoor netball court, indoor basketball court or indoor gymnasium and run around the hardwood floor. If you don't want timber, don't take your kids to those facilities, because you can't do that with pine; it has to be hardwood, and it has to be hardwood sustainably harvested here in Australia. The people in my community are proud of the jobs they've had and the jobs they've done in building the infrastructure in their own communities and also right throughout Australia.

The economic importance is well understood on this side of the House—80,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs associated with the timber industry. But those opposite, in their self-righteousness, in their desperation to appease the Greens, have never bothered to understand the environmental argument for a native hardwood timber industry. They are so desperate to make sure they get those preferences from the Greens, to shore up some of that left-wing vote and make sure it votes for the Labor Party to keep their own primary vote higher, that they've never bothered to understand what a sustainable hardwood timber industry does for the environment of this nation. Well-managed, harvested forests are part of the solution to reducing emissions, because a young re-growing forest absorbs more carbon than a mature deteriorating forest. That's a simple fact.

The member for Fremantle says, 'No, it's not.' I invite him to stand up at some point—I'm sure he'll get his opportunity—and he can run through how he came up with this strategy. He was the architect of methodology that Labor's applying here. The assistant minister, Mr Wilson, was the architect of this methodology. Shutting down the Australian native hardwood timber industry is the deliberate design strategy of what he's trying to achieve here. He has stated on many occasions that he hates the native hardwood timber industry. From the wooded suburb of Fremantle, from the heavily timbered suburb of Fremantle, the member for Fremantle has always wanted to shut down the native hardwood timber industry. He was happy when they shut down the industry in Western Australia. He was happy when they shut it down in Victoria. He would love to see all harvesting in the native timber industry end. Tell me that's not true. The silence says it all. This bloke wants to shut down the native hardwood timber industry right across Australia—

Direct your comments through the chair, please.

The member for Fremantle interjected, and I invited him to comment.

I am just trying to bring a point of order here.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. So we have a member with not a single harvestable tree in his electorate lecturing the rest of Australia about how they should manage their forests.

Come to Freo sometime!

The member for Fremantle is not helping.

Member for Fremantle, I've been to Freo. You come to Gippsland, you come to Australian Sustainable Hardwoods in Heyfield and you come and visit my timber workers and say why you want to shut down their industry. Come and tell them why you want to shut down the industry.

I'm not going to say this again. I have already dealt with the interjection from the member for Fremantle. I'm asking you to direct your comments through the chair. This is not a personal attack on either side. You can make a robust argument, but you direct your comments through me.

We have the sad remnants of a Labor Party—I remember when the old Labor Party used to stand up for the battlers. They would stand up for the timber workers. They'd stand up for people who were involved in the forest industry in my community and be proud of the work they were doing in Gippsland. But the modern Labor Party sells out those workers. It sells out their jobs. It ignores their economic contribution to the nation and puts our lives at risk in our communities. When you stop the native hardwood timber industry, you put us in danger because people die and animals die in poorly managed forests—and we have more than enough public land in Gippsland being poorly managed by the Victorian state government right now; we don't need more reserve areas and more areas being locked up.

We need more boots and less suits. That's more boots on the ground doing practical environmental work and less suits in metropolitan areas making excuses, less suits from the Labor Party in city seats telling us how to live our lives and less suits actively, deliberately, trying to take away the jobs of hardworking Australian timber workers.

Today, both houses of parliament have an opportunity to back practical climate action. Today, both houses of parliament have an opportunity to strengthen the protection of native forests and koalas. Today, both houses of parliament have an opportunity to back economic activity in regional Australia. It's time for people in both houses to back practical action which backs the regions and to vote down the coalition's move to disallow the native forest management method.

Voting this down will be a win for New South Wales communities in particular, because the establishment of the Great Koala National Park is expected to generate, with this scheme, $200 million in regional economic activity. We think that's a good thing. It's also going to protect 12,000 koalas, 36,000 gliders and the habitat of more than a hundred threatened species. We think that's a good thing.

It's pretty hard for the member for Wannon to surprise me these days, because I thought I'd heard it all. I know that he's an extremist. I know that the member for Wannon is run by the IPA and ADVANCE and he's after the 'Sky after dark' vote and he's taking the Liberal Party further right on climate than it's ever been before, which is a big call—hard to do. But I've got to admit I was surprised—gobsmacked, in fact—to hear the member for Wannon say, 'National parks—what do they deliver? Noxious weeds and feral animals.' National parks are a great Australian institution that have had bipartisan support, to be fair. Governments of both persuasions, and federal and state, have built a great estate of national parks through our country that we can be proud of, that people from around the world come to visit and that families visit on a daily basis. They protect our beautiful natural and vital resources. And what does the member for Wannon say about national parks in Australia? 'Noxious weeds and feral animals—terrible things, our national parks.' I've heard it all now. You can only go so far right. I know that you take your marching orders from the Institute of Public Affairs and ADVANCE and you're after that 'Sky after dark' vote. You're fighting with One Nation over that. But, really, we've heard it all now.

The improved native forest management method is a simple premise. It gives states a way to earn income from carbon credits, if they reduce logging, that they can then invest in those communities and help the workers. It's a voluntary method. States aren't obliged to use it. Some states will; some states won't. New South Wales clearly will. The voluntary method gives states sensible options and gives communities access to economic diversity. A state government can elect to reduce its logging in certain forests in exchange for earning carbon credits, ensuring fewer trees are cut down, there's greater habitat protection for Australian wildlife, and local economies remain supported.

This method was initiated by the New South Wales government. The member for Wannon thought that was a revelation. It's all on the public record. It's part of the process. The New South Wales government did instigate this. It was independently assessed by the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee as meeting the legislated offset integrity standards. It'll deliver emissions reductions and improve environmental conditions and biodiversity by protecting native forests.

The other person involved in the establishment of this method is Professor Andrew Macintosh. I don't always agree with Professor Macintosh. He is a critic, by and large, of the offsets regime. Here we have a person who has criticised the offsets regime more broadly, but he has specifically designed this one because he believes it has high integrity. He believes it is one which can actively support biodiversity and emissions reduction. So, if even someone who is deeply sceptical of the offsets regime thinks this is a good method, maybe it's an opportunity for members in both houses to reflect on that.

I do want to thank the leader of the Greens for her engagement on this issue and the majority of the Greens party room who will be supporting this side of the House and opposing the disallowance motion. I simply say this to every member of the House: if you're a Green or not a Green, if you believe in climate action—if you're voting on a bill or a motion in relation to climate change and you're in the Liberal Party, the National Party or One Nation, you're probably on the wrong side. I know some Greens senators have taken a different view and have chosen to vote with the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation. I simply say this: you tried that before on the CPRS, and you set back climate action in this country by decades. That is something that the Greens party should always be ashamed of. This is practical action, and the majority of the Greens have taken a more practical and sensible course today.

On these sensible measures, the member for Fremantle and I have agreed to make some small adjustments to the process which will enable the Clean Energy Regulator to give effect to the New South Wales government's commitment to limit the sale of ACCUs generated within the Great Koala National Park to a specified class of entities. It'll apply only to projects under this method and only where a state government chooses to opt in to those requirements. In addition, my honourable friend has written to the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee seeking advice on variations to the method, including the amount of forest that must be protected against established harvesting baselines before projects can receive any carbon credits—rising to 30 per cent for projects registered from 1 July 2030—and clarifying the definitions of plantation forests and native forests. The ACCU scheme is an important part of Australia's pathway to net zero. I know I run the risk of triggering members opposite by mentioning net zero, but it is an important part of it.

You haven't mentioned jobs once!

I just talked about the economic development opportunities, investment and jobs created in regional Australia. The ACCU methods can not only help drive emissions reduction; they can also create economic growth and opportunities for landholders, regional communities and businesses. The honourable member for Gippsland said we need to go out to regional Australia. Well, I have walked Arnhem Land, and I have inspected the savanna burning method, for example, with the First Nations groups implementing that method. I have seen firsthand the economic opportunities, the growth and the jobs created for our First Nations people in Arnhem Land.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Yass looking at the soil sequestration methods and the wealth created and the improvements in soil for farmers and the improvements in productivity created by these methods. So I say to the National Party and the Liberal Party that they should get out more and they should talk to those farmers who want to take these methods up. They should talk to those groups who want to participate in these methods.

We did implement the Chubb review on coming to office, which has seen enhanced integrity and expanded opportunities for regional Australia. The Climate Change Authority's latest review of the scheme, released just last week, found it robust and that it remains fundamentally sound and important to Australia's climate policy framework. So we'll continue to take sensible and practical steps, and I thank those honourable members in this House and in the Senate who are supporting it.

There once was a time when those on the conservative side of politics saw the value in conserving the environment. I've often thought that you're not really a conservative unless you care about conserving the environment. I do want to pay tribute, however, to Senator Andrew McLachlan, who has indicated he will be voting with the government—a Liberal senator who'll be voting with the government. He has shown courage and a practical approach, and he's to be congratulated for that. It's also the case that the Liberal Party wants you to support markets. This is a carbon market. This is a market mechanism. We on this side of the House support the operation of the market. Those opposite oppose it. We want to see regional communities benefit from sensible climate policies. We're focused on practical outcomes. We're focused on emissions reductions and jobs creation at the same time.

I also want to thank the honourable member for Fremantle, my assistant minister, who's done such good work on this. He's to be congratulated for this outcome, as well. I thank those members and senators who today will be voting for practical environmental protection and for economic growth and who will be voting against ideologues on the other side who don't believe in emissions reduction and want to see regional communities suffer.

We just heard a speech from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy that did not mention jobs and did not mention real people once. Well, Minister, my electorate has the Herons Creek mill. The Green Mill is now shut. Jobs are lost. Jobs started to be lost on Father's Day, when the New South Wales government announced the moratorium. Can you imagine the impact? It's fine for you here in Canberra to say 'economic development'. There's no economic development in Herons Creek. I'll tell you what there is; there's job losses. There are job losses, and not just for the mill at Herons Creek. The impact is on mills up and down the coast.

Another one of my timber mills has seen the availability of logs smashed, and the demand for their timber is being cut by a third. That's a small business operating in a small community. These are the impacts that are already being felt in the community. I've also got the Australasian Sports Floors manufacturer. They build floors in sports stadiums around the world. They need native hardwood timber. My town Wauchope, where I come from, is called 'timber town'. I live across from a state forest. Herons Creek and Wauchope—we're all interconnected. All our communities are interconnected around this issue. When you shut down one mill, you kill communities up and down the coast. There's Gibson's in Kendall, who supply the machinery to the mills. I've been to see them, and the impact on them is acute. These are real people and real small businesses that are affected by a decision and by a methodology that just does not stack up.

The fact of the matter is that the New South Wales government announced the Great Koala National Park before it put forward the methodology. So there's no additionality. The Greens are even saying—and conservation groups are saying the same thing—this does not stack up. It does not have credibility. Just because the minister stands up at the dispatch box and says, 'Oh yes, it's got credibility,' I can tell you, out there in the real world, out there in my electorate—I'd love the minister to come. I'd love him to come and eyeball the real people out in the electorate and say what he said in here to them, because these decisions we make here in Canberra affect the people in my electorate and the electorate of Cowper and the electorate of Page. Real people are losing their jobs. For what? For a methodology that simply doesn't stack up.

As I said, the decision for the park was an election commitment. The political decision came first. Then the state government said, 'How are we going to pay for it? How are we going to pay for this Great Koala National Park?' And they came up with the INFM method. I wish I could give credit to the government for seeing through this, but, sadly, the Albanese government has bought into the lie that this is somehow some genuine way of saving forests and saving koalas. None of it is! It will not change a thing.

I agree with what the member for Wannon said—that it will have an impact for feral animals. And here we've got two governments, the federal and the New South Wales state governments, which have doubled down by taking the guns away from the very people who help control our feral pigs and our dogs. So this is truly a crazy decision.

All I want to say—because I want to give my colleague here, the member for Monash, an opportunity to speak as well—is this decision helps kill the jobs of people in my electorate. Shame on you, Minister.

As the minister explained, the government are going to oppose this motion because we support the sensible further development of Australia's land-based emission reduction efforts through what has become the largest, highest quality and highest integrity carbon market in the world.

We support the bringing forward of carefully designed and rigorously developed methods that expand opportunities for emission abatement while delivering new economic opportunities that are overwhelmingly located in rural and regional parts of Australia and significant improvements in environmental conditions and biodiversity. And we support outcomes that protect our native forest estate and therefore protect our precious distinctive Australian biodiversity. And that's precisely what the integrated native forest management, or INFM, method can deliver.

The project put forward by the New South Wales government under the INFM method is part of their commitment, as the debate has considered, to establish the Great Koala National Park. It will support the protection of 176,000 hectares of native forest on which koalas depend—forest that is home to a hundred at-risk native species—while creating significant new economic opportunities that we on this side of the House support. And that's why the INFM method is supported by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, the National Parks Association of NSW, the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation and Greenpeace, among others.

It is disappointing that the Nationals bring this motion, particularly when their apparent remit is the interests and wellbeing of people in rural and regional Australia. It is disappointing that they would seek, through this motion, to undermine the carbon farming system that has emerged to such varied and positive effect over the last 15 years in the communities that they represent.

I say that knowing that the ACCU scheme is appreciated in rural and regional communities, where the enormous value of having options to diversify economic activity while caring for country is seen very clearly. I say that while we work with Meat & Livestock Australia on an updated livestock method. I say that while we work to deliver an updated reforestation and forestation method, where stakeholders from around the country—but particularly landowners, farmers and people in rural and regional Australia—come to us, come to the government and say how grateful they are that this vital opportunity in Australia is being maintained and indeed expanded. I say that, as the minister has noted, knowing the incredible extent to which the savannah fire management method has protected 34 million hectares in northern Australia, delivering $59 million a year to project operators, 75 per cent of which are First Nations led businesses.

The INFM method recognises the carbon sequestration value that's achieved when there's a commitment to a substantial cessation of logging in state managed native forests, while rigorously calculating and applying conservative discounts for the possibility of carbon leakage. We are very conscious on this side of the House, through this new method and through the ACCU scheme as a whole, of just how critical it is to deliver substantial emissions abatement in a variety of ways, in every area of Australia's landscape and its economy in a way that's predictable, forward-looking and fair.

We make no bones on this side of the House about the fact that the ACCU scheme is helping to combat dangerous climate change, whose effects will be felt most sharply on the social and economic circumstances of people in regional, rural and remote Australia. The obligation and the responsibility on all of us to take that seriously is something that this side of the House understands, while those on the opposite side of the House completely ignored it and put their heads in the sand about it for the 10 years while they were at the helm of the ship.

We know that helping to combat dangerous climate change by emissions avoidance and sequestration, and the support that the ACCU scheme provides, is critical. It's absolutely essential to a sensibly managed process of decarbonisation—one in which Australia continues to reduce our national emissions profile, in keeping with our ambitious 2030 and 2035 Paris climate agreements, but does so without jeopardising the viability of emissions-intensive and trade exposed industries. The INFM method, a new ACCU method, will make a small but substantial new contribution to that task while supporting a new much needed native forest sanctuary for at-risk Australian flora and fauna, not least of which is the koala.

As I have to keep pointing out, the feature of the ACCU scheme that appears to have been deliberately ignored by those opposite—in bringing this motion and in general—is the extent to which the carbon market is creating opportunities for communities in regional and rural Australia. Economic diversification, economic viability, investment in a whole variety of ways, whether it's in the clean energy transition or in carbon farming—that is supporting the vitality of regional and rural communities. That's something that we see clearly, and that's something that we will continue to support.

This motion seeks to block the protection of Australian native forests. It seeks to block, for no good reason, a new piece in a vital patchwork quilt of land based greenhouse gas abatement, at a time when we need to keep doing as much of everything, everywhere, all at once as we can possibly manage: renewable energy and storage, electrification of transport and decarbonisation of industry, agriculture and our built environment. Land based abatement, and all the many good things that brings with it for environmental repair and restoration, particularly for rural and regional communities, is a critical part of that. I'll tell you that the people that come to see the minister and me express that in no uncertain terms, all of the time.

The ACCU scheme methods—

Don't lecture me about what's good for regional Australia.

Member for Lyne, you've had your turn.

including this new method, are a critical element of that process, delivering abatement and sequestration that will help protect this country from dangerous climate change, which is the greatest risk that faces the communities that you purport to represent. They're securing and smoothing the emission reductions we need from our largest emitters and, at the same time, improving environmental conditions; improving farm outcomes; improving farm productivity; creating greater resilience to climate impacts; and supporting local economies, businesses, jobs, economic diversification and broader social wellbeing right across this country in a way that those communities celebrate. They will be telling you that too while you carry on with your pantomime here today—jobs across rural and regional Australia. That will be true of the INFM method as it adds to the stable of ACCU methods in one of the largest, highest integrity, most successful and most valuable carbon markets in the world that we celebrate and defend and will expand and that, for some unknown reason, you consistently oppose.

The time allotted for this discussion has now concluded.

The question is that this motion be agreed to.