I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is aimed at stopping Labor's net zero agenda from literally destroying our way of life. This is about making sure we're protecting our way of life, and we have to protect our way of life, because Labor's net zero obsession is harming and hurting it in so many ways. The latest example is what is happen to our farmland. We are seeing our farmland being harmed. Communities are being harmed because Labor are pursuing the wrong priorities.

There was an example in the last term of government in my electorate in and around a town called Simpson. We saw a foreign company, a German reinsurer, come in and purchase dairy farms and beef farms so that they could be planted with trees so that it could get the carbon credits from them. The community was up in arms. No-one consulted with the community about this. No-one said to the community, 'You're going to see massive change in land usage just because all of a sudden you've got a foreign company deciding that is what's going to happen.'

The local hardware store, the local rural produce store, the local shops were all sitting there saying: 'But this is going to kill our farmlands, this is going to kill the employment on those farmlands, and this is going to kill our local communities. Who are we going to get to play in our local football and netball clubs? How are we going to sustain our lovely small rural community, which has been operating for over a century?' All of a sudden, bang! One decision means a company has come in and completely changed that community for a very long time, if not forever.

We wrote to the Treasurer saying: 'Did the Foreign Investment Review Board look at this? Did they make any decision around the need for consultation with the local community? Did any of that happen?' No, it did not, and the Treasurer was warned.

So it beggars belief that we've got another example down at Rushy Lagoon, in Tasmania, where not only a foreign company came in and bought a prime piece of agriculture land but the government helped facilitate it by getting the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to help fund it. You've got a government organisation, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, saying, 'Yes, we're happy to tip in $69 million to help this overseas company buy this farmland.' Guess what. The poor old Australian farmer, the poor old Tasmanian farmer, who thinks they wouldn't mind using this land as a dairy farm, as a beef farm or for any other purpose—how can they compete with a government organisation that tips in $69 million? It is an absolute disgrace.

This private member's bill is all about saying enough is enough. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation cannot step in and help fund a foreign entity to buy Australian farmland. Enough is enough.

Who's in support of this? The only people in support of this are the Albanese Labor government—oh, and probably the Greens as well. They're the only ones in support of this. Does the Tasmanian state government think it's a good idea? No. Does the local farming organisation in Tasmania think this is a good idea? No. Does the local community think this is a good idea? No.

Why wouldn't you go to the community and say, 'We're happy to consult'? Because—you know what—under the legislation you're meant to. Yet did they? We've got the so-called champion of regional and rural Australia here sitting opposite, the member for Eden-Monaro. Did she intervene to do anything? No. Nothing was done to protect these regional and rural communities. And enough is enough. We've got to put an end to this.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation should have known better. If they were stepping in to fund something like this, they should have known that this wasn't viable. If it had been viable, they wouldn't have needed to step in. They are meant to make sure they get a return on what they're lending, yet they've done some dodgy deal with an overseas company to buy this land and take it out of the hands of Australian farmers. Well, I say enough is enough, and that is why this private member's bill is so important.

I hope those opposite have a think about what is going on here. Could you imagine if the Clean Energy Finance Corporation stepped in and said, 'We're going to buy the Marrickville golf club and plan it with trees'? There would be absolute uproar if they stepped in and said, 'We're going to buy the Marrickville golf club and plant it with trees.' Yet you sit there and are more than happy to allow this to happen to our good farmland.

I would love to continue on for the rest of my allotted time, but I also want to make sure that our coalition partners, who are also up in arms about this, get a chance to speak, so I'm going to hand over to my good friend to continue for the last remaining bit of this debate.

Is the motion seconded?

Yes, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

This, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Protecting Australian Farmland) Bill 2026, is a critical private member's bill. Australia is facing a cost-of-living crisis, and the attack on agriculture is part of what is causing that cost-of-living crisis. Families are paying much more at the supermarket, more for electricity and more for everyday essentials. At a time when people are struggling, government policy should be focused on producing food, supporting farmers and strengthening our regional communities, not attacking them and not attacking agriculture itself.

The Rushy Lagoon example that the member for Wannon explained is absolutely perverse in its outcome. More than 21,000 hectares of productive agricultural land was purchased by a foreign investment fund to plant out with pine trees—to stop the farming, stop the economic activity of the local community and plant out with pine trees. That is perverse enough, Member for Wannon. Do you know what makes it more perverse? It's that the Australian taxpayer helped finance it. The Australian taxpayer helped finance the destruction of an Australian regional industry in an area where we're supposed to be supporting economic activity, supporting jobs and supporting regional communities.

What are we doing in this place if the Australian taxpayer is helping foreign companies to facilitate a purchase of an Australian productive farm and turn it into non-productive areas? It is crazy. It's like the Murray-Darling Basin thing all over again. It is government policy intervening to take agricultural production away from regional communities. And what does that mean? It means there's less Australian food security, less Australian food sovereignty, less economic activity for regional jobs in regional communities and fewer export dollars. A lot of these products—Rushy Lagoon was a dairy facility—get exported to South-East Asia, to China. We are absolutely stepping off the field where we have built up successful export markets over many years through our attack on a successful export industry—agriculture. It is insane to think that we would do this. It's an example of economic self-harm, which has been a trademark for this Albanese government during its four years of being in office.

You only needed to read the papers on the weekend to see where this is leading us. These left-wing policies are not good for the Australian economy, and we're starting to see it. I recommend everyone read Chris Uhlmann in the Australian. If you wanted to stuff up an economy, this is what you would do. This is exactly what you would do over the last four years. We've got to get back to making sure that Australian taxpayers' dollars are focused on productive and profitable Australian industry, not locking up farmland, taking it away from production and significantly damaging the regional communities that depend on it.

The time allocated for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.