BUSINESS

2026-03-05 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 5 March 2026

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Withdrawal 1 09:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to a discharge of a bill from the Notice Paper to be moved immediately. And I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: That a motion relating to the discharge of a bill from the Notice Paper may be moved immediately and determined without amendment and that the question be put after 30 minutes of debate, with 5 minutes per speaker. And I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: That the government business order of the day relating to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 be discharged from the Notice Paper. The government are taking this step because we understand the bill does not have the support of the Senate, and it would not pass the Senate in its current form. But this is an important reform, and the government does remain committed to it. Freedom of information— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Seriously, senators. Senator GALLAGHER ING This is an important reform, and the government remains committed to it. Freedom of information is a vital feature of our democracy, but the way the FOI system is working now is unworkable. The current framework is stuck in the 1980s—before smartphones, before artificial intelligence—and our laws genuinely need to be updated. Last year, public servants spent more than a million hours processing FOIs. We continue to listen to the feedback that we are getting across the parliament, but we do seek to negotiate in good faith to progress this important reform. For example, we previously amended the bill in the House to ensure a person with a legitimate reason for wanting to make an anonymous FOI request, such as a whistleblower, can ask for a member of parliament, journalist, lawyer or friend to make an FOI request for non-personal information on their behalf while maintaining their anonymity. We have an open mind and will continue to engage on the final form of the important reforms that we will bring back to the parliament to get on with fixing the FOI system, which I think we all agree needs updating. The current bill will be discharged today while we undertake that important work. We are genuinely after reforms that will make the system more efficient and genuine for applicants; protect the safety of public servants, which is incredibly important; save taxpayers money on frivolous and vexatious requests; and ensure our FOI laws cannot be exploited by malicious actors. I will go through this briefly in the time that is allowed to me. Agencies and ministers received 43,456 FOI requests and finalised 39,390 requests in the 2024-25 financial year—a 20 per cent increase from the year before. In 2024-25, FOI processing was estimated to cost agencies almost $100 million, significantly more than the costs that were experienced just a few years ago. Public servants, as I said earlier, spent over a million hours in 2024-25 processing FOIs. So why do we need to reform? What has changed? The FOI Act commenced in 1982, and the system is still stuck in the 1980s, long before the digital age, before the widespread use of email and many decades before smartphones and other modern technologies. At the time the FOI Act commenced, the number of electronic records created by government and the speed at which they are created was unimaginable. Also unimaginable in 1982 was the impact of the internet, which has made it possible for anyone anywhere in the world to generate large volumes of vague, anonymous, vexatious or frivolous requests without it costing them a dollar. As technology continues to develop, this will be a growing problem. When they are brought back, our FOI reforms will make the system more efficient and effective for the people who are genuinely seeking information. Our reforms will also protect the safety of public servants, save taxpayers' money on those requests that are frivolous and vexatious and ensure our FOI laws cannot be exploited by malicious actors. I have seen plenty of evidence of the inappropriate threats that are made to public servants through the current ways that FOI is being used and utilised. It is unacceptable. The government does have a responsibility to act and ensure the safety of staff across the APS. This is not a joke. These are people who are having their home addresses identified, who are having widespread threats against their own individual safety and their families' safety because of the way the system is currently being worked and being abused, and the government needs to respond to that. As Minister for the Public Service, I say that this is a growing problem across the service, it should not be diminished and we should accept the responsibility that exists to make sure that the system in place serves the purpose it needs to serve in terms of freedom of information but also is not abused by those who have other intentions. 09:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What a win for democracy, what a win for transparency but, more than that, what a win for the Australian people. The government is today admitting the bill they brought before the Senate was going to silence Australians. What an absolute disgrace. To everybody in the crossbench, to those of us on the non-government side of the chamber—the Liberal Party, the National Party, all of the crossbenchers. We worked together to ensure that the Australian people knew that—guess what—we would never allow the Albanese government to bring in a bill that was going to silence you and that was going to ensure that you did not have the basic democratic right that you deserve, and that is to access information held by the government. Colleagues, you do have to find it ironic, though, because, prior to May 2022, I do recall Mr Albanese, the now prime minister, saying that, when he was elected, this government would be the most transparent government that Australia had ever seen. And yet every single day in this parliament, whether it's this place or the other place, what we see is the erosion of democracy. Forget transparency; they are closing the door every single chance that they can get. And then they have the audacity to bring in into the chamber—or attempt to bring into the chamber, because we were never going to allow it to get to debate—a bill that sounded so simple when Senator Gallagher described it. 'Oh, there's nothing to see here.' Well, guess what. That's not what the bill says. The bill does almost the exact opposite of what Senator Gallagher just put on the table. This is a bill that was all about making it harder for the Australian people to access information. Yet, contrary to what the now Prime Minister said prior to the election, that his government would never be afraid of transparency, would never be afraid of actually being held responsible for their decisions—well, guess what Australia—they are not only closing the door on democracy and closing the door on transparency but, worse than that, they tried to close the door on the basic democratic right of any Australian to access information held by the government. That is an absolute disgrace. Let's talk about freedom of information. What is it actually meant to do? It is there because in Australia we have a great system of government, a system of government that says government information belongs to the people. Why? Because we fundamentally believe in the principles of democracy. I hate to tell the Albanese government: if you believe in democracy, you actually believe that people have access to information; you don't shut the door on them. Let me tell you what this bill did. Under this bill, Labor were basically going to turn government information into a private asset that ministers were able to sit on. They were going to ensure that the public were going to actually have to pay for the right to access this information. They were actually going to have to ensure that they put in place every form of road block to you exercising your basic democratic right to ensure transparency of this government. Do we think on this side of the chamber that the FOI system does need to be reformed? Yes, it clearly does need to be modernised. We all agree with that, and we have said we are more than happy to look at measures that will actually ensure that the public do get better access to information. The real problems are delays, backlogs and bad-faith behaviour and, yes, they are clogging the system. Yes, the system needs to be modernised. Yes, the system needs to ensure the public have a right to easily access information. Let me be very clear here to the Australian people. The Liberal Party and the National Party will never ever support the Albanese Labor government seeking, by legislation, to entrench secrecy and price you out of being able to access information. We fundamentally believe FOI is a democratic right. You have the right to access government information. We will support modernisation of the system to make it easier, but the coalition will never support the Albanese government silencing Australians. (Time expired) 09:13 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia What do we have here? We have the government coming into this place and discharging the same very bill that they claimed would make things easier, or, as we heard from Senator Gallagher 'nothing to see here, people'. Can I remind the chamber that this is the second bill the government has discharged of their own accord. After the misinformation and disinformation bill that failed miserably, this is the second bill now that they have come in here and have had to discharge because they have seen that the Senate is not willing to support them. I thank my colleagues in the Liberal Party, the Nationals, the Greens and the crossbench for coming together and saying, 'We will make sure we listen to the Australian public.' Journalists and whistleblowers have also raised concerns about this bill. It has been on the Notice Paper for a while and the government has refused to listen to the Australian public. We value democracy, we value transparency but while those opposite, the government, claim to have received a mandate from the Australian people to be more transparent, we are seeing the exact opposite. I am curious to understand how many hours of precious time did public servants spend on this bill, on having to curate it together? And it was all for nothing—all for the government to come, tail between its legs, and say, 'We're going to discharge it because there's no support.' Newsflash: if you rush something through, don't consult, don't talk to the Australian public—yes, we have to modernise it, but the way to modernise an FOI system isn't to charge the Australian public even more. They pay enough taxes already, but, clearly, the government doesn't see that. You're so adamant on making it harder for people to gain access to information from your government. What do you have to hide? What was the whole point of establishing the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which, as a former Labor candidate, I campaigned heavily on? What's the whole point of claiming to be transparent, something that your own Labor members have been asking for, yet you come into this place and you say, 'No, we're just going to make it harder because of some frivolous and vexatious claims.' If you don't want to do your job properly, then just admit it, but we're not going to stop making sure we keep you accountable and making sure that transparency is paramount and that it's always prioritised in this place. I also just want to give a shout-out to Rex Patrick, the transparency warrior, for walking the halls and making sure that this bill is taken off the Notice Paper. As we've seen, it's not fit for purpose. We are willing to come to the table and actually help with curating a proper bill that's fit for purpose, but, as it stands, nobody's backed it, and I'm glad that the government's finally realised that this bill that they'd introduced is a failure of a policy. It beggars belief. Is Minister Rowland fit for the cabinet? This is the second bill that has had to be discharged. We get accused of being time-wasters here in the Senate—especially the cross bench when we're putting up OPDs or we're pushing for motions. I was hoping to have this debated next week and have the question put then. I'm glad that the government's finally realised no-one's going to support this shambolic bill. The Australian public deserve better. They deserve transparency. They deserve honesty. If the government's not going to do it, you've got the cross bench and the other parties here in the Senate fighting for the Australian people. 09:17 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Finally, we're going to see the end—a nice, clean, peaceful and non-violent killing of Labor's Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. It's going to go into the dustbin that it should never have been pulled out of in the first place. It is extraordinary that the Labor government has taken so long to not just read this room but read the Australian public. When the Australian public heard the spiel that came out of the Labor Party when they announced their so-called FOI reforms and they heard, 'The system's been overwhelmed by Russian bots that are trying it take down the FOI system,' the public then said, 'Show us the evidence.' We said, 'Show us the evidence.' We asked the department to show us the evidence. There is no evidence. It turns out there are no Russian bots trying to break the FOI system. The number of lies that Labor has told about the rationale for their FOI campaign is equivalent to Trumpian levels. There have been false arguments. They said about a million hours of bureaucrats' time was spent dealing with FOIs. That's actually one of their claims that I believe, because I've seen how many hours bureaucrats spend blacking out information, coming up with reasons to refuse information, desperately trying to work out what the minister would or wouldn't want produced and then blacking out everything else. I don't doubt a million hours has been spent under Labor desperately trying to prevent information being put on the record through FOI. But the answer to that is to change the culture. If you really want an answer to FOI backlogs, maybe read the first five provisions of the act, because what they say is that you shouldn't have to wait for people to make applications; the government should be transparent and should be proactively publishing this information. Imagine if we had a searchable online database of government information that people could go to that was freely provided by the government and that would be consistent with the FOI Act. Imagine how many FOI applications would not have to be made because people could get access to government information, which, at the end of the day, is not owned by the Labor Party or the coalition. Government information is owned by the Australian public. This bill was always an attack on truth—putting in application fees and cost barriers to get information. It was about hiding government information through expanding cabinet-in-confidence provisions. It was about putting caps on processing claims and saying, 'If it is going to take us more than X hours to black out and come up with reasons to refuse your claim, we won't even process it in the first place'. The more important the claim, the more likely it was to be failed under these bills. With the way in which the government introduced this bill without talking to anyone in civil society, without having an open process, and they just brought in their bill, their thought bubble, maybe they thought the coalition would just jump on board. I'll be frank, the coalition was pretty rotten on secrecy, and I thought it had set a new low bar for secrecy under the Morrison government, with secret cabinets appointments and how hard it was to get information out. They were pretty bad. To their credit, Labor has actually excelled at one thing. They have excelled at being even worse on secrecy than the Morrison coalition government. I wouldn't have thought it were possible, but you have managed to win that contest—the most secret government that we have seen in generations. I really want to thank my team, who have done a great deal of work. I want to thank all of those non-government members of this chamber who have joined together united against this, but I especially want to thank the Centre for Public Integrity for their incredible work in this space—the analysis that they have done about just how broken this bill is and about how it backs in government secrecy and excludes the public from having basic access to information. I think their analysis has been extraordinary. It's been important. It's one of the reasons the government is walking away with its tail between its legs and withdrawing its own bill today. I want to thank the Human Rights Law Centre and all of those other NGOs who have come out and backed in the public's right to know. What should the government now do? The government should now rethink this entire strategy. They should come out with a white paper, a discussion paper. They should enter into a public open consultation about what's wrong with the FOI system, what's right with the FOI system and how we go about reforming it. They should do it in the full glare of public consultation. They should then genuinely assess that white paper and come back with a set of reforms that makes the FOI system works. Yes, the FOI system is broken, but it is not broken for any of the reasons Labor says. It's broken because this government, like the one before it, is still addicted to secrecy. (Time expired) 09:22 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I welcome the decision of the government to finally listen to the Senate, to listen to experts in our community and to, indeed, listen to the Australian people and dump this bill which would have significantly damaged our already broken FOI system. Listening to contributions, I think the tragedy of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 is that there is a recognition that the FOI system is out of date and that the act does need to be updated, but there has been nothing from the government to actually consult and to bring forward reforms that do that—that modernise it, that ensure that Australians get access to information held in their name in a more timely way and that we have a government whose default is openness not secrecy. We hear a lot about the time it's taking and the cost it's taking to process FOIs. When you look at the statistics, it's not hard to see why that is happening. FOI requests granted have fallen from 59 per cent to just 25 per cent. That's a lot of time deciding which shouldn't be released. Refusals have nearly doubled, from 12 per cent to 23 per cent. Again, there's a lot of time in that. FOI review times have blown out from six months to 15½ months. I think most Australians would say that is totally unacceptable. This is an example of the Senate doing its job as a check on executive power, as a check on an executive which is seeking to protect itself, to reduce scrutiny and, as I've said a number of times, even go against the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission and to learn from that. This is an executive that is seeking to be able to operate in the dark. That is not aligned with Australian values and what the Australian public want and expect. I would also, as Senator Shoebridge did, like to thank the Centre for Public Integrity for their leadership in this space, for the work they do and for their clarity of thought. They said that the proposed amendments represent 'an unprecedented and unjustified attack on the right of Australians to access government information'. I also join Senator Shoebridge in thanking the Human Rights Law Centre for their powerful advocacy in this space. There are just far too many problems with this bill to go into, but I have been really concerned—again, as Senator Shoebridge pointed out—about the claims that there were foreign bots churning out FOI requests, which were proven through the inquiry process to be demonstrably untrue. There was simply no evidence that could be produced by the government or government departments that that is the case. One of the other claims, which I agree is a big issue in service delivery for the government, was some of the threats, and we know that some examples given of threats in the FOI system actually did not relate to the FOI system. They were to do with Comcare. I have real concerns, again, about a government that is willing to actually use evidence over here to back up something that it is trying to do in this other space. That is a real concern when you look at the government's narrative on this bill. We should be looking for ways to improve FOI. Firstly, we have to say that a default to openness rather than secrecy is how we reform FOI. The government would be saving public servants, who are doing incredibly valuable work, hundreds of thousands or potentially a million hours if there were a default to openness rather than this culture where, as I showed yesterday—and I won't use a prop again—we're just getting blacked-out pages from the government. I think the second one is looking to technology solutions available through innovative Australian companies. We know that companies like Nuvento, right here in Canberra, are saying that they have secure offline systems that can rapidly transform FOI by actually finding the information and ensuring that it gets to the people who want that information sooner. It's curious that the government isn't looking at those solutions. You have to say, 'Well, people might actually get the information that they're after, and that doesn't suit the blacked-out pages and the secrecy we're seeing.' I welcome the Senate doing this, and I'd urge the government to engage. Let's do this properly. Let's, in this place, actually act on behalf of Australians. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 5 DOCUMENTS Tabling 5 COMMITTEES 5 COMMITTEES Meeting 5 09:28 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised. BUSINESS 5 BUSINESS Rearrangement 5 09:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That private senators' bills do not proceed today. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Cash I0M A division is not required. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Is leave granted to cancel the division? Leave granted. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 5 09:29 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. Leave not granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. It is remarkable that we have a government that, firstly, as we've just seen, seeks to remove opposition senators' time to debate bills that they bring forward into this place for debate. It's something that is in the calendar for every week of the sittings schedule. It is an opportunity for non-government senators to actually give air to an issue of concern to the community, a group that we represent; they've gone and taken that away. Yet here we are trying to establish the capacity to debate an important piece of legislation, the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026, and the government have determined, 'No, we're not going to allow that to happen.' Indeed, I'm pretty sure I heard voices down the end of the chamber indicating the government is supported by crossbench senators in this pursuit of blocking scrutiny of this important legislation. As I say, this is private senators' time, and we should be allowed to debate bills of our choice in it. Allowing this to occur is not an indication that government or crossbench senators want to support the legislation we're debating, but it is just allowing us to have this debate. Senator Hanson-Young I0U We killed this yesterday. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The bills were introduced into this place on Tuesday, as a matter of fact, not yesterday—whoever made that ridiculous comment down the end of the chamber there. The point is this was put on the books. It's been there for colleagues to consider, to consume, for a number of days, and this is not a new issue. It's an issue that's been around for weeks. Australians are asking for answers to these questions. Australians are seeking assurances from the government around the protection of our borders and our national security, but the government are not going to play ball. They're not going to be transparent, not going to provide information and not going to allow us to debate this legislation today, which is why we're moving this motion to suspend standing orders to allow us to debate this legislation. This legislation, of course, is important. For three days now we've had the government doing the Sergeant Schultz on the issue of ISIS brides—not knowing a thing. They haven't able to give us a single answer to a single question we've been asking in the interest of national security and in the interest of protecting our way of life. We've been asking, 'Who issued the passports?' They said, 'We don't know.' We asked them, 'Who carried the passports to Syria to these people?' 'We don't know.' We asked them who these people were, and they didn't know. We asked them, 'When are they coming back?' They don't know. They know nothing! Instead of allowing us to have an hour and 10 minutes of the day to interrogate these issues and actually get to the heart of the problems this country is facing when it comes to who comes in and under what circumstances they come in, the government refuse to allow us to debate this. As I said, every day in question time we've given the government an opportunity to clear things up, provide some clarity, provide assurances, provide some certainty to the people of Australia, who are wondering who is coming into this country, but this hands-off approach applies not only to providing information and not only to clarifying these issues but to border security. We used to have a government that managed border security and determined who would come in, but now we've outsourced all of that to groups like Save the Children, who are out there on their own providing repatriation services on behalf of the people of Australia and the Australian government with no security, no intelligence services and no vetting of individuals. They've been left to do it because the government won't. The other interesting part about all of this is you've got the government talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. You've got the minister who said, as he said on Insiders a couple of weeks ago, 'We don't want them back,' when talking about this so-called ISIS brides cohort. He said that—'We don't want them back.' Then do something about it, Minister. You are the Minister for Home Affairs. You are able to do something. You can determine who comes in and who does not. The application of temporary exclusions orders is something very much in the domain of the home affairs minister and something he refuses to do. He's done it for one of the 11 adults in the cohort, not for the rest—that baffles me. But they have an opportunity today to support this legislation to end this loophole, which is allowing third parties to determine who comes back here. Those third parties are providing support services for these individuals to come into Australia. These are people who've turned their back on this country and gone to a declared terrorist hotspot to support a death cult. These are the so-called ISIS brides. They're not friends of Australia. If the government are serious about national security, they'll support the suspension, and they'll support the bill. (Time expired) 09:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's usually the process that private senators' bills are not introduced and debated in the same sitting week, which is what the opposition are trying to do here. This was also the case for Senator Payman's bill yesterday. But, unlike Senator Payman, the opposition have other bills on the Notice Paper they could have debated, rather than trying to go against the usual process and introduce and debate this bill in the same sitting week. It's clear that this is just another stunt that the opposition is undertaking for political gain, rather than genuine debate. As has been stated many times, our government is not providing assistance and is not repatriating individuals in Syrian IDP camps. Any Australian returning to Australia who has allegedly breached Australian law will be investigated and subject to the full force of the law. If any of those people find their own way to return, our agencies are satisfied that they are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. Our law enforcement and national security agencies are following the same approach they have for over a decade, the same approach the former government endorsed when a number of male foreign fighters came back to Australia. On that basis, I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Watt to close debate be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [09:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 25 NOES Askew, W. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 7 PAIRS Ayres, T. Sharma, D. N. Farrell, D. E. McLachlan, A. L. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. McCarthy, M. Antic, A. Steele-John, J. A. Scarr, P. M. Walsh, J. C. McDonald, S. E. Wong, P. Liddle, K. J.

Question agreed to.

09:45 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [09:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Askew, W. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 7 PAIRS Ayres, T. Sharma, D. N. Farrell, D. E. McLachlan, A. L. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. McCarthy, M. Antic, A. Steele-John, J. A. Scarr, P. M. Walsh, J. C. McDonald, S. E. Wong, P. Liddle, K. J.

Question negatived.

Rearrangement 8 09:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That non-controversial government business commence at 12.15 pm or one hour following the resumption of the sitting of the Senate, whichever is later. Question agreed to. 09:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator CASH I0M That's fine—two minutes. It's a further silencing of democracy, and it's the further silencing of the right of those in the non-government side of the chamber to actually have a bill brought forward in their private senators time—it is the opposition's private senators time today—and debated. This morning, colleagues saw this government come to the chamber and discharge a bill that would have given Australians the right to access information from them. What are we now looking at? This government has just silenced the opposition from bringing forward a bill that is fundamentally important to the national security of Australians. We all know why. It is because this government fundamentally lacks transparency—in particular, when it comes to the return of the ISIS brides. Let's not forget who these women are. They are women who fundamentally turned their backs on Australia. They turned their backs on Australian values, and they made a choice to go overseas and join an Islamic caliphate—a caliphate that slaughters people, a caliphate that tortures people. And this government throws its hands up and says, 'There's nothing we can do.' Well, guess what: we're calling you out on that. There is something you can do. You can actually support the bill that Senator Jonathon Duniam has brought before the chamber, a bill that would ensure that, with Mr Tony Burke's mate Dr Jamal Rifi currently over there facilitating the return of the ISIS brides, that is made a criminal offence. What a complete joke. This is a government that says there's nothing they can do. Well, I say you need to think a little bit more creatively and perhaps get the opposition to help you. I tell you, this is an opposition, with this portfolio led by Senator Duniam, who will always put the Australian people first. We will shut the door on ISIS brides who sought to leave this country, turn their back on the great Australian values and join a terrorist cult. Shut the door. And shame on you for denying us that time. (Time expired) 09:50 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement here today in the Australian Senate. What we are seeing from the government benches, from their partners in crime when it suits them—the Greens—is the shutting down of the Australian people's voice. We actually have a chamber that represents the diversity of Australian views. The Australian Greens have a great swagger, those senators, and there are One Nation, Independents, the National Party and the Liberal Party. What we've seen this week is a government so out of control of this chamber that they have shut down and silenced senators from right across the country, right across the political spectrum. And what we've seen this morning is a refusal by the government to allow His Majesty's opposition to bring our bill to this chamber to be debated—something that, in my 15 years here, has been a matter of course. We are respectful— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Sorry, Senator McKenzie: I have Senator Sheldon on a point of order. Senator Sheldon 168275 A point of order: this matter is supposed to be about the suspension itself. She's not addressing the actual issue—about the suspension. She should be going to that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator Duniam, on the same point of order? Senator Duniam 263418 Yes, on the same point of order: as was ruled by Acting Deputy President Sharma yesterday, there is latitude to provide context for the suspension. It is something that was brought to the attention of the chamber a number of times in the debate yesterday. So I'd argue that there's no point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Sheldon, on the same point of order? Senator Sheldon 168275 Yes. Senator McKenzie was denied leave to make a statement. That's what the issue is that we're debating now, not the matters she's raising. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Thanks, Senator Sheldon. How about I just rule, and politely encourage you to stick to the suspension, Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you, Chair—excellent ruling, in line with the long traditions held in this chamber. I was denied leave to make a statement, and in the denying of leave we have seen this chamber, particularly the Greens and their partners in crime, the Labor Party, shutting down the voice of Australian senators. The statement I wanted to make, had I not been— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator McKenzie, I have Senator Hanson-Young on her feet. Is this a point of order? Senator Hanson-Young I0U A point of order: I haven't heard why Senator McKenzie is seeking to suspend, when the chamber has just voted against suspending on this exact vote. She is denying the will of the chamber and should be brought back to the purpose of the speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie has been on her feet for seconds. I heard her reference to suspension. You're in order; continue, please, Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you very much. The collective Greens don't appreciate that we are all elected here as individual senators, and the contingency motion I am speaking to recognises that. Despite the chamber voting previously on another senator's denial of the ability to speak, that does not deny me my right to get up here as the Leader of the National Party in the Senate and call out the Labor Party—the government—and the Greens for shutting down debate again and not allowing me to make a statement in the interests of my constituents, my political party and non-Labor government senators on this side. What we have seen from this government on the ISIS bride returns is appalling. An urgent debate needs to occur. The opposition has done the right thing and developed a private senator's bill to address the concerns of everyday Australians about ISIS brides and their nearly adult children returning to our shores. This is actually an issue of concern. What we have seen from the government, in their impotent, flaccid, pathetic response to this issue is of concern. We have had Australia's foreign and minister in this chamber this week, with hands up, saying, 'There was nothing I could do.' The Prime Minister said, 'If you're an Australian, you have a right to a passport.' No, you do not. Under the Australian Passport Act 2005, the government and the minister have the right to suspend the application of a passport, refuse to issue a passport under certain grounds and, indeed, cancel an issued passport under certain grounds. Having been a minister who's had to make tough decisions and has gone against departmental advice at times because it's not in the national interest, ministerial discretion is there for a reason. Governments are not instruments of the department. We've been elected. You have a duty that you swore to do, whether you made the affirmation or swore on your holy book with the Governor-General, to uphold our constitution and to act in the national interest. You do not take— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order? Senator Hanson-Young I0U Again, Senator McKenzie is seeking to debate the issue that this chamber has rejected the debate today. I would ask Senator McKenzie, what does she say about the 14-year-old girl who is trafficked and coerced against her will— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson-Young, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. That is also a debating point. Senator McKenzie, I do think you are staying, though, so I again remind you to please stick to the motion before us. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I do seek to suspend standing orders because, again, this government has refused to answer simple questions. On the children that are over the age of 14 that should be subjected to temporary exclusion orders, the foreign minister refused to answer the question. How many passports have been issued to this cohort? Australians are concerned. Australians are compassionate people, but a government's responsibility is not to wait to be told what to do in a crisis by officials; it is to lead and act and to use their constitutional powers and responsibilities to always act in the national interests. That's what the opposition has sought to do, and that's what we'll continue to do. 09:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to support the right of Senator Bridget McKenzie, a member of the opposition and the leader of the National Party in the Senate, to actually speak in the chamber. The last time I checked, colleagues, is that not what we are here for—to speak on behalf of the Australian people? But those on the other side seem to have a problem with that. If you are reading directly from the talking points given to you by the government, regardless of the topic, regardless of whether you've actually read them—I often come here and have to say, 'I'm pretty sure there was a full stop there; I'm pretty sure there was meant to be a comma, but that's fine,'—you're reading talking points. Guess what? Senator McKenzie has the right to come into this chamber— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Cash, I have the minister on her feet. Minister McAllister? Senator McAllister 121628 I'm seeking your clarification, Acting Deputy President, about the matter that is before the chamber. I had understood it was a motion to allow Senator McKenzie to make a speech. She has just given a speech. I'm unclear how Senator Cash's contribution advances Senator McKenzie's motion at all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 We were debating the suspension motion, so that's where we are. Senator Cash is speaking to that. Senator Cash, if you could stick to the motion, that would be handy. Senator CASH I0M I am sticking to the motion, with all due respect, because I am speaking directly to why (a) I am supporting Senator Bridget McKenzie's right to actually speak in this chamber and (b) I am supporting the right of any elected member of this chamber to come in and exercise a right that they have under the standing orders of the Senate and, more than that, a right that we are here to exercise on behalf of the Australian public. What is wrong with this government? Why do you hate it when senators in this place who are not elected as part of your political party stand up and give an opposing view? What problem do you have with senators in this chamber coming in and representing— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 I have Senator Hanson-Young on her feet with a point of order. Senator Hanson-Young I0U The point of order is about the issue of suspension— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Relevance? Senator Hanson-Young I0U Senator Cash is debating an issue that the Senate has already ruled on. I'm asking you to bring her back to the point. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Duniam, on the same point of order? Senator Duniam 263418 On that point of order, Senator Cash is being entirely relevant to this matter— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Duniam, I don't need your contribution on that. I haven't ruled, so you could just let me rule or— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Sure. Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 Senator Cash is being entirely relevant to the suspension. Senator McKenzie asked for two minutes to speak and was denied leave. We've now spent 10 minutes debating this, and she's being entirely relevant. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 As I have done previously, I am politely reminding people to stick to the suspension. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senators, this is not a moment where we just yell at each other. If you would like the call, Senator Cash, you have it. Senator CASH I0M Yet again, those on the opposite side are showing that they are prepared to support that a senator not have the right to be allowed to speak in this chamber. For those who need to be caught up with the process, this is what happened. In the first instance, this morning, it's the opposition's private senators' time. We sought to bring on a bill to debate. The government denied the opposition the right to bring that bill on. Worse than that, the government moved to not have opposition private senators' time today. Let's wait to see when they try that on any other person who's not part of the government. Secondly, Senator McKenzie sought leave to make a statement—ironically, for about two minutes. That was denied. Senator McKenzie then sought, as she is entitled to, to exercise her right pursuant to a contingent motion standing in her name. For those of you who've been here a long time but still don't know what a contingent motion is, I suggest you read the Notice Paper. It's been there for time immemorial. She is the Leader of the National Party in the Senate; she therefore has contingent motions standing in her name. She stood and sought to exercise her right, pursuant to the contingent motion, to explain why, as a senator elected in this place to represent the Australian people, she should not be denied leave by the Albanese Labor government and why she should not be denied leave by the Greens, the great friends of the Albanese Labor government, to make a statement. I am entitled to jump, as part of the suspension process, to support Senator McKenzie's right in this chamber to come in here and make a statement. Ironically, we're already at four minutes past 10. How's that working out for the government? We actually would have hit a hard marker at 10 past 10 had you allowed Senator Duniam to just move his motion to bring on, as we are entitled to, a bill that we want to debate in the chamber in the first place. You may not like the topic—the fact that we want to put in place laws to ensure that people can't go overseas and help people who've gone to a declared area come back to Australia, to criminalise that—a national security piece of legislation. Wouldn't it have just been simpler to allow it, instead of trying to silence democracy, instead of trying to silence the ability of senators on the non-government side of the chamber to just stand up on Thursday morning, when it says clearly on the Notice Paper that it's their slot for private senators' bills? Senator Hanson-Young I0U I raise a point of order on relevance. Senator Cash is now debating the same issue that the Senate has just voted on and been very clear about. Could you please bring Senator Cash back to why this suspension is more important than the last suspension that they lost— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson-Young, you can be seated; I've heard your point of order. On point the of order, Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 On the point of order, I think that we are now having a debate that is completely and utterly outside of the scope of what is actually happening here at the moment. Our first suspension motion was denied by the Greens. In fact, the person who denied the suspension is now the one who is making a submission about something that she actually caused. So I draw to your attention, Acting Deputy President, that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is being directly relevant to the suspension motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Thank you. We are debating the debate of the debate. I'll give the call back to Senator Cash and remind her of the subject of the motion that is before us. Senator CASH I0M Thank you. Again, with all due respect, I am going to review this and work out how I am not being directly relevant to the question before the chair. Senator McKenzie moved a contingent notice standing in her name to suspend standing orders. I am now supporting her right to suspend. You couldn't be more relevant if you tried, quite frankly, in my humble opinion. Shame on those on the other side for trying to silence a senator in this place. 10:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I simply wish to advise that the government will not be supporting this suspension. The government did accede to the request from Senator McKenzie to make a two-minute statement. Another senator denied her leave to do so at that moment, but, as it has transpired, Senator McKenzie has indeed already given a five-minute speech. Senator Cash has given a five-minute speech. The government does not intend to support a suspension of standing orders that would enable further speeches about matters which have indeed already been litigated over the course of this morning. 10:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I think the really important issue here, which everybody seems to be missing on the other side of the chamber, is the importance of the freedom of senators to be able to make a contribution in this place. There are many times that we have debates in this place where I don't agree or I don't like the debate or the particular position that is being put forward by the government or another member, but I think the most important thing that we need to realise is that public debate and the exchange of ideas, whether we like them or not, are the fundamental reason that we are elected to the Senate. We are elected to the Senate to represent the views of the people that we represent. We're not here to have some sort of cancel culture, 'Close down the debate if you don't like it,' activity. That's why I think this is so important that we are debating this suspension motion. Quite frankly, it is not necessarily about the issue that we have sought the suspension on. That actually doesn't matter here. It's the fact that this chamber is trying to silence elected members of this parliament and prevent them having a discussion about a matter that they think is particularly important. It actually doesn't matter what that issue is. Unless you can have transparency in this place and you can share all your views, you cannot possibly have a debate that reflects the views of every Australian. If we are only allowed to debate the views of those that sit on the other side of the chamber, we'll have a very left-leaning view of the public debate. We seek, on this side, to put forward the views of the people that we represent. In this chamber we have now moved into the realm where apparently transparency doesn't matter anymore. We saw this morning, only because the government knew that it could not pass its bill in relation to its draconian measures to try and shut down access to freedom of information, that that particular bill was gotten rid of. We have a pattern of behaviour in this place of shutting down debate, of denying transparency and of refusing to allow this Senate to do its job, which is to investigate the details of what the government is proposing. The government still is accountable to this chamber and the other chamber, and it's accountable to the people of Australia. You have got to stop trying to shut that down. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Pursuant to order, the sitting of the Senate will be suspended until the ringing of the bells to enable senators to attend the address from the Prime Minister of Canada. Sitting suspended from 10:10 to 11:45 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the hard marker at 12.15 has been moved to 12.45. NOTICES 12 NOTICES Presentation 12 COMMITTEES 13 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 13 Report 13 11:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I present the second report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee REPORT NO. 2 OF 2026 5 March 2026 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator Leah Blyth Senator the Hon. Matt Canavan (Nationals Whip) Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 2026 The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 4 March 2026 at 7.14 pm. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 April 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral), (b) the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2026 (see appendix 2 for statement of reasons for referral), (c) the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2026 (see appendices 3 and 4 for statement of reasons for referral), and (d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 April 2026 (see appendix 5 for statement of reasons for referral). The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026 National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026 Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019 Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025 Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025 Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023 Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025 Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Low Emissions Future) Bill 2025 Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 Fair Work Amendment (Paid Reproductive Health Leave and Flexible Work Arrangements) Bill 2025 Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025 Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025 Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025 Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill 2025 National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026 Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 Right to Protest Bill 2025 Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 [No. 2] Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement. Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 (Tony Sheldon) Chair 4 March 2026 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 12 February 2026) Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): MARCH-APRIL 2026 Possible reporting date: 15 APRIL 2026 (signed) Print name: Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment {Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 5 February 2026) Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): MARCH 2026 Possible reporting date: 25 MARCH 2026 (signed) Print name: Wendy Askew Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 27 November 2025) Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): MARCH-MAY 2026 Possible reporting date: 14 MAY 2026 (signed) Print name: Wendy Askew Appendix 4 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: to examine detail Possible submissions or evidence from: industry, consumer groups, department Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Possible hearing date(s): April, May Possible reporting date: 14 May 2026 (signed) Print name: Nick McKim Appendix 5 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 12 February 2026) Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): MARCH-APRIL 2026 Possible reporting date: 16 APRIL 2026 (signed) Print name: Wendy Askew Senator SHELDON 168275 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add ", and, in respect of the: (a) Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, the bill not be referred to a committee; and (b) Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026, the bill not be referred to a committee". I will just speak briefly to that amendment. On the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, this bill updates the statutory appointment provisions for a number of office holders across the Foreign Affairs and Trade and Attorney-General's portfolios. They're very minor amendments to modernise the provisions. They're sensible and minor, and we would argue a referral is not necessary. On the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026, the government believes that urgent progression of these amendments is necessary to support the royal commission's work and particularly the delivery of its interim report. The royal commission's work is already underway, and it is critical to ensure that the royal commission has full access to all relevant information. The bill supports this by ensuring that the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion can receive all information relevant to its terms of reference, and this will support the royal commission to make well-informed findings and recommendations. The office of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has been consulted and has expressed strong support for these measures, particularly given that the amendments facilitate the royal commission's ability to receive critical information, documents and evidence from law enforcement and our security agencies. The passage of these amendments will provide certainty that the relevant intelligence information can be provided to the royal commission without the restriction of secrecy offences. I know briefings have been provided and certainly have been made available, considering the short turnaround time on this bill, but this is something that the royal commission itself supports and indeed seeks. Therefore, we do not support it going to a committee. I should also say that I understand there is a short inquiry underway through the PJCIS to consider this and that other briefings have been made available, and certainly remain available, for other members who may not sit on that committee. 11:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I wish to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, but I also request that the two provisions be voted on separately. In the first instance, at the request of Senator Duniam, I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of: (a) the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2026; and (b) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2026". The PRESIDENT 112096 Because there are overlapping amendments, the Clerk has suggested that, at this point, we move only part (a), recognising your other amendments. Senator RUSTON 243273 On that basis, I will speak to only part (a). I move: Paragraph (a), omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2026". The coalition is seeking to refer the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to ensure the proposed governance changes are properly scrutinised and fully understood. While the bill is presented as a measure to modernise accountability frameworks for statutory office holders, several elements of these reforms, particularly the introduction of minister-set performance standards, appear to be novel and warrant closer examination. A committee inquiry would allow the parliament to test whether these changes are appropriate and consistent with governance arrangements that apply to other Commonwealth statutory office holders. A Senate inquiry will provide an opportunity to clarify whether specific operational and management issues prompted these reforms and whether the government intends to extend similar measures to other statutory bodies into the future. The proposed reforms allow ministers to set written performance standards that may form the basis for termination. This raises important governance questions, particularly as these standards are not legislative instruments and may not be subject to parliamentary oversight. An inquiry would enable stakeholders and affected agencies to provide evidence on how these performance standards would operate in practice, including whether there are adequate safeguards such as consultation, transparency and rights of reply. The bill also introduces new suspension powers and expanded termination grounds, and the committee process would help determine whether appropriate procedural protections exist for statutory office holders subject to these powers. Finally, a Senate inquiry would allow affected agencies to provide submissions and evidence to ensure the parliament has a full understanding of the policy, rationale and implications of this bill. 11:51 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I wish to move the amendment in Senator McKim's name—it's probably an amendment to the coalition's amendment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, could I stop you there. Because there are overlapping amendments, the Clerk's suggestion is we deal with part (a). You have an amendment that's been circulated, which we can come back to. We're dealing with the selection of bills committee report and we are putting it in sections. The first part we're dealing with is the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston, but we're only dealing with part (a).

The Senate divided. [11:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Cadell, R. P. Ciccone, R. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hume, J. Steele-John, J. A. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. G. Walsh, J. C.

Question negatived.

12:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 Because there are some overlapping amendments and we've just dealt with part (a) of Senator Ruston's amendment, I'm now going to put part (a) of Minister Gallagher's amendment. The question is that part (a) of the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 5 PAIRS Ciccone, R. Cadell, R. P. Farrell, D. E. McGrath, J. A. Steele-John, J. A. Hume, J. Walsh, J. C. McKenzie, B. G. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question agreed to.

12:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move the amendment circulated in Senator McKim's name: Paragraph (b), omit "the bill not be referred to a committee", substitute "the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2026". This legislation, the royal commissions amendment legislation, is designed to implement, or is said to be implementing, some of the recommendations from the interim report of the veterans royal commission to allow people from security agencies to give full and frank evidence to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. What Commissioner Kaldas found in the veterans royal commission was that the Royal Commissions Act is not fit for purpose when it comes to secret information from the ADF and that many people in the ADF felt they couldn't come and speak to the royal commission and tell the full truth about what was happening in the ADF, because of a series of secrecy provisions that apply to members of the military. Commissioner Kaldas and the other commissioners of the royal commission asked the government to fix that during the veterans royal commission, and it did not happen. That was a failure. It's an ongoing failure of the government to not fix it for the veterans royal commission. It has now become very clear that it's a real impediment. Those same secrecy provisions in the ADF and a raft of other secrecy provisions that apply to ASIO, the AFP and Border Force—indeed, the 850 secrecy provisions that the INSLM said are a significant problem in the Commonwealth space—are a real impediment to people coming and giving evidence to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. So what does the government do? The government works with the coalition to come up with a very partial and imperfect pretend fix to this. The core part of this bill says that, if the royal commission and the heads of the different security agencies come to an arrangement about what information can be shared, how it can be used and how it can be stored—and information is provided in accordance with the arrangements struck between them—then that information and those whistleblowers, those witnesses, are protected and can't be prosecuted under a certain set of secrecy provisions. But what that does is give a veto power to the heads of all the security agencies to say what the terms of the arrangement are and how the evidence can be used. If there is no agreement—and it requires agreement between the royal commission and the agency heads—then there's no protection. Why would we be giving ASIO, the AFP, and Home Affairs a veto power over what information can be given to the royal commission, the circumstances in which it can be given and the manner in which that information can be used? That's what this bill does. That's its primary part—the immunity. Of course people across the broader community have a sense of anxiety. If we're having a royal commission into ASIO, you can't have ASIO set the terms in which witnesses can come forward and give evidence about ASIO. That's fairly obvious. Of course we've asked for this to go to an inquiry. We didn't ask for this to go to a long inquiry. In fact, the inquiry we were picturing was one that would effectively be on the papers. We'd open up for submissions today, we'd consider those submissions on Tuesday and we'd write the report next Tuesday—which would largely be just a reflection of the submissions, you would hope. The fact that the coalition and Labor are opposing even that level of transparency on this and are not letting those engaged stakeholders point out the obvious problems with this bill—like how limited the protections will be and how it again privileges ASIO, the AFP and Home Affairs—shows what a partial and grossly imperfect fix this is. If you want this royal commission to have public support and you want people to feel like it's getting to the truth—this kind of half baked pretend fix that gives the very agencies that should be under investigation a veto on what evidence can be given to the royal commission and how it can be given erodes that public trust in the royal commission. We think this is fixable. We think the government could agree with some amendments and give broad protections for people going to the royal commission. We think it is possible to amend this bill to fix it, but it looks like the stitch-up is in. The coalition and Labor have agreed that this is all they're going to do, and they want to ensure that ASIO, the AFP and Home Affairs can set the rules for this royal commission. That's why we want it to go to an inquiry. 12:13 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge, standing in the name of Senator McKim, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:17 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that part (b) of Minister Gallagher's amendment to the motion that the selection of bills committee report be adopted be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Collins, J. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 17 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:18 The PRESIDENT 112096 Now, we'll move to part (b) of Senator Ruston's amendment. 12:18 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: At the end of the motion, add " and the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2026". At the last election, Australians were not presented with this policy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, sadly, the time for debating this has expired, so I have to put the amendment without debate. The question is that part (b) of the amendment standing in the name of Senator Duniam and moved by Senator Ruston to the motion that the selection of bills committee report be adopted be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 4 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. Scarr, P. M. Walsh, J. C. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A.

Question negatived.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

BUSINESS 22 BUSINESS Rearrangement 22 12:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That — (a) the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 be considered from 12.15 pm; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 417 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 23 NOTICES Postponement 23 COMMITTEES 23 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 23 BUSINESS 23 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 23 12:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the deferred vote, as moved by Senator Duniam on Tuesday 3 March, be taken now.

The Senate divided. [12:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 37 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McLachlan, A. L. Steele-John, J. A. Scarr, P. M. Walsh, J. C. Smith, D. A. Ciccone, R.

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 24 DOCUMENTS Defence Personnel 24 Order for the Production of Documents 24 12:32 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 20 March 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages, created since 1 July 2025, between the Minister for Defence and/or his office and the Department of Defence in relation to plans to cut back the number of senior officers in the Australian Defence Force. 12:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: Omit all words after "That", substitute: (a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and (b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

23 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 37 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whitten, T. 6 PAIRS Ciccone, R. Smith, D. A. Farrell, D. E. McGrath, J. A. O'Neill, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Polley, H. McLachlan, A. L. Walsh, J. C. Scarr, P. M. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question negatived.

12:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 393, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

38 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whitten, T. 23 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McLachlan, A. L. Polley, H. Scarr, P. M. Walsh, J. C. Steele-John, J. A. O'Neill, D. M.

Question agreed to.

Cybersafety 26 Order for the Production of Documents 26 12:41 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move general business notice of motion 394: That— (a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 15 April 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Prime Minister and/or his office, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Minister for Communications and/or her office and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner in relation to the meeting held on 5 November 2025 between the Prime Minister and a primary school student for the purpose of enabling the student to present her research on the social media ban to the Prime Minister; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 18 March 2026, an itemised list of all expenses incurred, if any, in the course of, or incidental to, facilitating the meeting referred to in paragraph (a). 12:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: Omit all words after "That", substitute: (a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and (b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly. The amendment is the same as the amendment I moved to the previous one, as it relates to a request from the government that senators consider when they call for an order of production of documents prior to other avenues being exhausted and that senators should reflect on that and refine their orders accordingly. 12:41 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I'm wondering for your guidance on whether or not this copying—control-v—of motions is actually a breach of standing order 196—tedious repetition? 12:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 As I indicated to someone the other day, it wasn't, and the reason is it needs to be related to the one debate. I think we need a division. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

23 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 39 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whitten, T. 6 PAIRS Ciccone, R. Smith, D. A. Farrell, D. E. McGrath, J. A. O'Neill, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Polley, H. McLachlan, A. L. Walsh, J. C. Scarr, P. M. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question negatived.

12:45 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 394 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 7 PAIRS Brockman, W. E. Steele-John, J. A. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Collins, J. O'Neill, D. M. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McLachlan, A. L. Polley, H. Scarr, P. M. Walsh, J. C. Smith, D. A. Ciccone, R.

Question negatived.

BILLS 28 BILLS Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 28

Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

To which the following amendment was moved:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) one in three of Australia's largest companies paid zero corporate income tax in the 2023-24 financial year;

(2) Labor and the Coalition have created a tax system where a single nurse or teacher paid more income tax than fossil fuel corporation Adani, streaming giant Netflix or the parent company of Optus, Singtel; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) introduce an excessive corporate profits tax to make sure big corporations pay their fair share of tax; and

(b) extend the ban on supermarket price gouging to corporations across the economy".

Third Reading 31 13:10 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 31

Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025

Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025

Second Reading 31 13:11 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia I rise to speak today on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025. This bill proposes a significant change to how parole decisions will be made for federal offenders in Australia. At present, parole decisions for federal offenders sit with the Attorney-General, through the Attorney-General's Department. This means that the power to decide whether some of the most serious offenders in our country are released into the community rests with an elected official who is directly responsible and accountable to the Australian parliament and ultimately to the Australian people. That system reflects a fundamental democratic principle. When a decision is made that affects public safety, the Australian people should know exactly who is responsible for that decision. There should be a clear line of responsibility between the decision and the elected official who made it. When something goes wrong, the public can hold that official responsible through parliament and ultimately through the ballot box. This bill will dismantle that principle. Instead of parole decisions being made by the Attorney-General, this bill would hand that responsibility to a newly created Commonwealth Parole Board. This board would be an unelected body made up of appointed members who are not accountable to the Australian people in the same way that a minister of the Crown is accountable. Once this power is transferred, the direct democratic link between the decision-maker and the public disappears. At the moment the Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction in Australia where parole decisions are made by an elected member through the Attorney-General's Department. That arrangement has always ensured that there is a clear and transparent line of responsibility. If the community has concerns about a decision, the community knows who has made it and who must answer for it. This bill will sever that line of responsibility. Instead of a minister making the decision and standing behind it, this bill will create a system whereby decisions are made by a board. When something goes wrong, the minister can simply say, 'Well, that was a decision of the board, not mine' and defer themselves from all responsibility. That will blur the lines, and accountability will become diluted. This is not a minor administrative change. This is a fundamental shift in how responsibility is exercised in our system of government. Parole decisions are not routine administrative matters. They are serious decisions that carry real consequences for community safety. They involve weighing risk, assessing behaviour, considering victims and determining whether someone who has committed some of the most serious crimes in our country should ever be released back into the community. These decisions require judgement, responsibility and, in my view, accountability. Decisions about parole are not administrative conveniences that this government can just outsource to a board. They are moral and legal responsibilities that must have the appropriate accountability attached to them. When a government is trying to remove those accountabilities and, ultimately, the responsibility of the decision-making, it weakens the principle that power and accountability should go together. Instead of any accountability or responsibility from this government, this bill will deliver an even bigger bureaucracy. This proposal actually represents a bigger bureaucracy. This isn't about improving the public safety. It's not about helping victims, and it's not about making the system more effective. What it does is create a brand-new government body where one did not exist before, and, whenever a new government body is created, it brings with it the full machinery of bureaucracy. There will be offices, staff, administrative structures, communications teams and management layers. There will be chairs, members, deputy members, advisers and support staff. There will be another logo, another website, another organisational chart and another growing list of positions that must be filled. And all of this will be funded by the Australian taxpayers. The government's own costings estimate the establishment of this board at $28.3 million over the next four years. It will cost $7.3 million every single year after that. That is nearly $30 million to create a bureaucracy to duplicate a function that already exists within government. Let's be honest, when a government says to the Australian people, 'We estimate this is going to cost $30 million,' you can pretty well bank on tripling it for what the true cost will be. This is a significant amount of taxpayer dollars to spend to simply move a decision from a minister, elected by the Australian people and accountable to the Australian people, to a new board and boardroom. Australians expect—and rightly so—that their taxes will be spent on improving services, strengthening communities and protecting our country. They do not expect millions of dollars to be put into bureaucratic structures that replicate work that is already being done. Government agencies rarely shrink. I don't think I've ever known of one that has. They expand. They will add new units, new functions, new committees and new advisory groups to this board. We can see that $30 million eventually expanding and becoming hundreds of millions of dollars in years to come. That's not efficient government, and it's certainly not a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. State and territory parole boards already exist across Australia and operate with cooperative arrangements for the Commonwealth and federal offenders who are involved. These arrangements allow the Commonwealth to work with existing state systems without the need to establish an entirely new federal bureaucracy. Creating a separate Commonwealth board risks duplicating those existing structures. Instead of simplifying a system, it will add yet another layer of administration. Instead of improving coordination, it will introduce an additional complexity. Instead of clarifying responsibility, it will spread responsibility across multiple bodies meaning that no-one will ever be held responsible or accountable for the decisions that are made. When a decision about parole is made today, the Attorney-General stands behind that decision. The public knows who made the call and who must answer for it. Under this new system, that clarity will disappear. If something goes wrong—if a dangerous offender is released and reoffends—the response will be predictable. Ministers will say that the decision was made by the board and that the board acts independently. In other words, responsibility will be passed away from those elected to lead. Victims and the Australian public deserve better than that. The appointment process for this board raises even further concerns. Under this bill, the government of the day will appoint the members of the board. That means the government will have the power to determine who sits on the body responsible for making these crucial decisions. Yet the bill contains very few meaningful safeguards to prevent political stacking. There are no strong mechanisms to guarantee that appointments will be purely based on expertise, experience or qualifications, and, without such safeguards, there is always the risk that positions will be filled based on political considerations rather than professional merit. Public confidence in the parole system depends on trust, and Australians must believe that the decisions are being made fairly and responsibly and are based on sound judgement. If there is even a perception that appointments to the board are being made on political grounds, then that trust will erode. The bill also states that the board should reflect as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community. At first glance, this may sound like a very reasonable clause to include in the bill. But, when you look at it more closely, what exactly does that requirement mean? Does it refer to geography? Does it refer to gender? Does it refer to ethnicity? Does it refer to age or background? The bill does not define it. It is vague, it is unclear and it is impossible to measure. And, more importantly, it introduces considerations that have very, very little to do with legal qualifications. The board, as set up, will be making decisions on whether some of the most dangerous convicted criminals in Australia should be released on parole into our community. If the wrong decision is made, community safety will be at risk. But this board is going to comprise those who reflect the Australian community as closely as possible, rather than those with actual qualifications to be members of this board. Parole decisions should be made based on professional expertise, legal knowledge, corrections experience and the ability to assess the risk that is posed in the wider community. The focus should always be on qualifications, judgement and experience. Public safety decisions should not become a social representation exercise. These cases involve the very extremes of serious offending in our country. These offenders include individuals who've been convicted of terrorism offences, child exploitation offences, people smuggling, cybercrime and organised criminal activity. Many of these cases involve complex investigations, sensitive intelligence information and matters that intersect with national security. These are by no means routine matters. They require careful judgement and a deep understanding of the broader security environment. The Attorney-General is supported by the resources of government and by the national security agencies. They are well positioned to assess these risks. Removing the responsibility from the Attorney-General and placing it into the hands of an external board risks weakening that assessment process. It will create greater distance between those who hold the intelligence and those who make the decision. Everything in this bill will weaken the principle of responsible government, and I think this bill seeks to undermine wider community safety here in Australia. For those reasons, we will not be supporting this bill. 13:25 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025. I wasn't actually planning to speak on this bill. I only made the decision to rise on this bill after hearing members of the government and the Greens speak on it, because I think there is a really important point at stake here. We heard from those opposite and those at the end of the chamber that state governments, in particular, have moved to this independent bureaucratic approach to parole boards. Whilst that's not universally true, it is true particularly in the larger jurisdictions. But—as I think Senator Scarr, who is sitting in front of me, would know—in Queensland, as well as in New South Wales and in Victoria, there have been severe problems with those independent bureaucratic parole boards over the years, and there has been significant evolution of those independent parole boards over the years. The mistakes of their initial formulation have become apparent over time, and corrections were made. The trouble with the approach the government is bringing to the table is that it has not taken on those learnings. It has not taken on the fact that there are problems with the approach that was initially developed over 20 years ago, in terms of independent parole boards. We've seen in all three of those jurisdictions—Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—a severe loss of trust at various times with the independent parole board process because their approach failed in various respects. Principally, I think, that is in terms of failing the victims. In the way the process was originally formulated, victims had no means to be informed about the process of parole or about when parole was potentially going to become available. They had no way of feeding their views into that process. So you had a situation where decisions were being made and those who were most impacted by the decision, the victims of the original crimes, had no role. This was a problem that was repeated in multiple jurisdictions across Australia—in Queensland, in New South Wales and in Victoria—and had to be addressed. Yet, even with that learning and experience, for whatever reason, it was decided that that was not going to be a part of this bill. You have victims of serious crimes—Senator Blyth just outlined the kinds of crimes that are covered under federal law and would be covered under a federal independent parole board of the sort outlined in this bill—who carry the burden of those crimes for the rest of their lives. There are families who carry the burden of those crimes for the rest of their lives. Yet, in formulating this bill, the government has taken no account of the very clear and necessary ability for victims' families to be informed as to timing and likely outcomes or to feed into the process and provide their own view on the matter of parole. That, in and of itself, is enough of an oversight to say, 'Back to the drawing board.' That, in and of itself, is enough to say, 'It's time we actually take this off the table, take this back to the drawing board and start to look at it again.' There are checks and balances in the current system. The first law officer has the responsibility in the current system of approving paroles, and that is as it should be. If you're going to move on from the system, you should, at the very least, have an improvement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Mr Brockman, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but, it being 1.30, we shall move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 33 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Cometti, Mr Dennis John, AM 33 13:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise, with great sadness, to acknowledge the passing of one of the absolute greats of sports commentary in this country, Dennis Cometti. Dennis Cometti was, particularly for Western Australians, the voice of football—not for just a year or two, but for decade after decade. He was a boy from the bush, and that shone through in his sense of humour. He was a pretty good footballer, who then became a pretty good coach, who then became the greatest AFL commentator of all time. No-one will ever forget 'centimetre perfect', his catch cry when a pass was delivered directly into the hands, usually, of a marking forward. As a Western Australian and as a West Coast Eagles fan, the piece of commentary that stands out in my mind will always be, 'Bobbing like a cork in the ocean, over his head—oh, my word!' That, of course, was the goal from Peter Wilson in the inaugural West Coast Eagles win in the 1992 grand final. There are many ways of having a good life, but giving so much pleasure to so many for so long is surely one of them. To his family, to his friends and especially to his many, many fans in Western Australia, we say: 'Vale, Dennis Cometti.' South Australia: Bushfires 34 13:31 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia Today, I would like to acknowledge the immense dedication and personal sacrifice demonstrated by the South Australian Country Fire Service during their work on the Fleurieu Peninsula last summer. The Deep Creek fire prompted an extraordinary multiagency and interstate response to protect lives, property and our precious environment. In early February, the CFS responded to a fast-moving fire between Deep Creek National Park and Cape Jervis. At this time, more than 260 firefighters, supported by 40 trucks and 15 vehicles, worked tirelessly to contain the blaze and prevent it from reaching the township of Cape Jervis. Over the course of the following 10 days, the fire burnt approximately 4,500 hectares and created a perimeter stretching more than 60 kilometres. The firefighters worked systematically to protect the regional community from harm and to ensure the local towns were shielded from potentially catastrophic losses. This was no small feat. Crews carried out complex back-burning operations to hold containment lines and protect communities and critical habitats of wildlife, including that of nationally endangered bird species. Through the extraordinary efforts of around 5,000 firefighters and personnel, supported by an additional 170 interstate responders, the fire was ultimately brought under control. Their work was aided by remarkable local support from the District Council of Yankalilla; government agencies; charitable organisations such as the Salvos, which provided up to 1,500 meals each day to firefighters and volunteers. While the fire has, thankfully, passed, many residents continue to experience stress, disruption and uncertainty. Our thoughts remain with all those affected, and we extend our deepest gratitude to everyone who played a part in keeping our community safe. I encourage everyone in my local community to create a plan and be bushfire ready. (Time expired) Middle East 34 13:34 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the devastating cost of human conflict. Last week, a long commemorative roll of paper—15 metres long—was installed on a wall in Adelaide. Artist Phil Buehler's Wall of Tears was brought to our city by a prominent Palestinian, Dr Sam Shahin. Sadly, it was pulled down just a couple of days later, but Mr Shahin has undertaken to have it reinstalled. It is a powerful memorial showing the names of over 18,457 children killed in Gaza before July 2025. Many more have died since. Dr Shahin, along with other South Australian citizens, stood at the wall and read out the names of the children, a sombre moment of sorrow, acknowledgement and reflection for children's lives lost, for the lifelong sorrow visited on their parents and their communities. Attacks on citizens, like we have seen in Iran this week and in that genocide in Gaza are the acts of famous men. We know their names—Netanyahu, Trump. We know the names of their enablers, some of them prime ministers in middle powers, who repeat their shielding lies as the basis of illegal attack, but we don't know the names of the 165 Iranian schoolchildren, as we see their tiny child sized graves being dug as we sit here or the razed homes of their parents, who will never recover from their losses. Of course, we'll never know the names of tens of thousands of brave Iranian citizens murdered by the brutal Iranian regime. These all deserve their own walls of names and memory for their courage and sacrifice. We are capable of holding both sets of tragedies, all of their names, in our hearts and minds. One tragedy does not offset or justify the other; we can mourn all loss of life. (Time expired) Sovereign Capability 34 13:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales In a world that is increasingly uncertain, when we see the rule of power overcoming the rule of laws, it is time to look at what we need to do as a country. I am taken by a phrase in The Art of War that says that preparation against defeat lies in oneself. We must look at what we're doing in Australia to make our own country resilient, to preserve our sovereignty. Sovereignty is the ability to make decisions without undue duress by others. I look at our food sovereignty. Our food and fibre are so important to who we are and what we are. How we are diminishing it—not by a single act, not by changing the rules all of a sudden, but by layer upon layer upon layer of different rules and regulations—is making it harder for Australians to provide quality food, quality fibre and quality products to our own people. I'll take the seafood industry as a starter. Australia imports now almost 70 per cent—in the high 60s—of our seafood from other nations when we have bountiful seas, when we have bountiful fish, when we have all of these things that are going there. We are about to have boats and fleets that do not set out this fishing season, because it is no longer viable. It is no one thing. It is fuel costs going up. It is lack of staff to fix refrigerators on boats. It is training. It is legislation. It is regulation. It is all of these things. If we don't send out someone to catch a prawn, a fish, a lobster here, it's not that it's not taken; it's taken from somewhere else—places that don't have our same requirements, don't have our same registrations, don't have our same regulations. We are on our people, on our food and fibre, all the time to sign off on this, that and the other, but all we expect our importers to do is sign something and they comply. They aren't held to the same laws. They aren't held to the same standards. They don't pay the same wages. It is time, if Australia is serious, we protect our way of life and protect our food and fibre industries. Workplace Relations 35 13:38 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria We're starting to see the benefits of the secure work, better pay legislation that was introduced in 2022 and fought so hard for by the mighty Australian union movement. The objectives of some of that legislation were to get wages moving and to improve job security, with, also, a focus on the services sector. Now we are really starting to see the benefits in my home state of Victoria in the local government industry. I would really like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Australian Services Union local government workers who are, right now, making history with their multi-employer bargaining. In metropolitan right Melbourne right now, workers are campaigning to negotiate the very first metropolitan multi-employer agreement. In December 2025, the Fair Work Commission gave them authorisation to bargain across eight councils in metropolitan Melbourne. They are Melbourne, Merri-Bek, Yarra, Darebin, Hume, Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong and Dandenong. Five more councils will be eligible to join in the middle of the year. When negotiated, this agreement will cover more than 10,000 workers across metropolitan Melbourne, and 70 amazing delegates have been meeting to plan for a campaign to make their workplaces better and seize this historic opportunity. These workers are following Victorian regional workers in local government who have actually achieved the first multi-employer agreement in local government in the country. Workers at Ararat and Central Goldfields councils have a multi-employer agreement, and I want to make a special shout out to the workers at Hepburn Shire Council. Libby, Evan and Scott, their amazing delegates, are out there this week, talking to their colleagues about an important vote to get them to join in that agreement. This agreement is important because it delivers job security and fair pay and conditions for workers who support our communities so well every single day, and I pay tribute to all of them. Parliamentary Standards 35 13:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Before I start, I just want to acknowledge the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia and the delegation, who are in the Senate. I want to start by expressing my absolute disappointment at the pointless time wasting we've seen in this place this week. We should be taking seriously the Senate's role as a house of review, here to represent our states and territories. I'm proud to represent the people of the ACT, and I urge the Senate to do better at actually engaging in issues that we face. This morning, the government denied the coalition the right to debate a bill—a bill that I fundamentally disagree with. I think what they're doing with it is awful, but I think that they have the right to actually introduce and debate a bill, and then we can vote against it, if we choose, as a Senate. We've descended into a chamber of pointless, petty politicking which seems devoid of any policy substance, and I think Australians are fed up with this. We're seeing poll after poll saying that, and it's on us to start to rebuild some of that trust and do better in this parliament. This morning's divisions meant that many senators missed attending a Parliamentary Friends of Palestine event and hearing from MSF, ActionAid and a number of NGOs who are working over there about challenges they are facing with deregistration and what that will mean. There was a press conference with crossbench colleagues aimed at raising awareness of the massive cuts to funding of frontline family and domestic violence services and backing their calls for more support. These are the kinds of things that Australians actually want us to be talking about. Here in Canberra, DVCS are facing an $820,000 funding cut when already they can't answer one in two calls. The Canberra Rape Crisis Centre are similarly facing a 60 per cent cut in their funding. Let's deal with these issues, not this pointless politicking that we've seen in this place this week. We have to do better as— (Time expired) South Australian Government 35 13:42 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia On 28 February, the Australian newspaper published an exclusive investigation including a secret tape-recording, a $2.3 million lawsuit, a failed blackmail sting which included the South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas, internal party stoushes and the use of taxpayer funds and agencies. What follows is not commentary or opinion; it's based on court records and matters that are currently before the courts. With a state election in South Australia just days away, these facts warrant careful consideration. In 2022, while serving as Labor's opposition leader, Peter Malinauskas met with a former Labor MP, Annabel Digance, and her husband, and a recording of that meeting was later provided to police, prompting an investigation into an alleged blackmail attempt. As part of that investigation, police used the recording devices in subsequent interactions, including at Labor headquarters. In 2021 Ms Digance and her husband were arrested and charged with blackmail, but in 2023 prosecutors withdrew those charges under an agreement that the accused would stay away from Mr Malinauskas and his family. No court ever made a finding of guilt. The same court documents state that in December 2020 the now premier, Peter Malinauskas, asked police to not proceed with the investigation until after the 2022 state election. The investigation was suspended at that time. The facts raised in this investigation are unquestionable for South Australian taxpayers. Why were publicly funded police resources drawn into an internal Labor Party dispute, why should taxpayers be left to carry the legal costs of this matter, and why was the investigation delayed until after an election? Ukraine 36 13:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I acknowledge in the chamber for my contribution today His Excellency the Ambassador of Ukraine and my parliamentary colleagues serving the nation of Ukraine. It's a pleasure to have you here in the chamber with us today. On 24 February we marked four years of Russia's illegal and immoral full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It has been four years of unprovoked Russian aggression against a sovereign democratic neighbour, in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. Australia is a steadfast nation in its commitment to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We've committed over $1.7 billion in total assistance, including $1.5 billion in military support, making Australia Ukraine's largest non-NATO contributor of military assistance. Australia has now put strict financial sanctions and travel bans in place for over 1,800 individuals and entities and 200 shadow fleet vessels. We've lowered the oil price cap and taken other measures to impose costs and limit Russia's ability to fund its war. Last week the government announced our single largest sanctions package since the invasion began. These sanctions listings target the finance and banking, oil and gas, transportation, defence, aeronautical, and science and technology sectors. Australia also expects businesses to prevent their supply chains from inadvertently funding Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. The government has made our expectations clear to industry and is taking further action to starve Russia's war machine of oil revenue. I acknowledge the support of 58 senators around this chamber in endorsing notice of motion No. 408, which reaffirms Australia's longstanding, steadfast and bipartisan support for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. (Time expired) Middle East 36 13:46 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria In the last five days we have seen a dangerous escalation in illegal violence driven by the imperial ambitions of the United States and Israel and endorsed by this government. Australia isn't just offering words of support to America's war machine; we are participating in it. Australian intelligence facilities underpin US military operations. Australia rolled out the welcome mat to refuel spy planes used by the US in their bombing campaign. Australian gas is extracted here, is subsidised through fossil fuel tax credits, is exported with next to no tax, and now fuels global price spikes as energy markets convulse under the weight of war. Australian critical minerals, which should power the renewable transition, are being locked into future defence supply chains that prioritise US military demand. Meanwhile, we have a foreign minister who seems to believe that countries can mark their own homework when it comes to international law and a prime minister who is behaving less like an independent leader and more like someone auditioning to be Donald Trump's most obedient lapdog. Let me be clear: no-one is defending the brutality of the Iranian regime. But we can hold that truth while grieving the 160 Iranian schoolgirls buried in rubble this week and the thousands more civilians now facing a prolonged and indiscriminate conflict. War profiteers salivate, defence contractors cash in, and our government, the Albanese government, washes its hands of responsibility. Australia is not America. We should not be dragged into imperial violence that makes the world more dangerous and ordinary people less safe. We must fight for international law, genuine sovereignty and peace. Domestic and Family Violence, Workplace Relations 36 13:48 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia As we mark International Women's Day this weekend, we should reflect on the barriers that women are still facing in the workplace and in their homes. For many women across Western Australia, the reality is still one of insecurity, of violence and of systems that are struggling to keep up with demand. In my home state, around three in 10 women have experienced physical, sexual or economic abuse by a partner. While demand for support is increasing, frontline organisations are grappling with funding uncertainty and cuts to domestic violence services. We also find ourselves, in the month of March, which is Endometriosis Awareness Month, shining a light on a condition affecting around one in nine Australian women and girls. Time and time again in this chamber I've raised the broader question of how the policies we debate in this place support reproductive health and women's continued participation in the workforce, should they so choose. Around the country, unions are campaigning for 10 days of paid reproductive health leave covering IVF, menopause, endometriosis, miscarriage and other reproductive needs. Yesterday, the Labor senator for Tasmania Josh Dolega brought up this gap in industrial relations legislation, expressing his support behind the union's campaign. But where is his party on this important reform? I haven't seen it on any legislative drafts. I would have thought that, when we were debating Baby Priya's law last year, we could have dealt with the legislation in a more holistic way. So while it's great we have a Labor caucus that has a majority of women and, therefore, is increasing our numbers in this chamber, let's put that representation into action through properly funding domestic violence services and to implement the 10 days of reproductive leave that unions are calling for. (Time expired) Western Australia: Renewable Energy 37 13:50 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Western Australia is in the midst of a significant and rushed energy transition driven by the Albanese government's net zero agenda. Projects like the proposed 250-megawatt four-hour Baldivis battery costing around half a billion dollars show how quickly developers are moving to position themselves within the government's policy settings, as coal-fired power stations at Collie and Muja are forced into closure by 2030. While Labor governments talk about transition and investments, communities are being left to deal with the consequences. It can be easier today to advance a proposal for a massive utility-scale battery than it is for an ordinary resident to obtain approval for something as simple as a backyard shed. Families can spend months navigating local planning rules for a small outbuilding, yet a 250-megawatt industrial installation can move forward at remarkable speed. That is the regulatory paradox that Labor governments have created. Communities are also entitled to ask what this means for their neighbourhood amenity. A battery facility of this scale being proposed for Baldivis audibly humming away day and night with lighting, fencing and increased activity is not a minor development. These are significant industrial projects that should be treated as such. Last Friday night, I attended a meeting of concerned Baldivis residents. This project is being proposed for an idyllic semirural area just south of Perth. It is dividing the community, and the emotion there was palpable. Residents feel they have been steamrolled by a top-down transition being imposed on them without genuine consultation. They believe—I've seen the properties for myself and I agree—that this is no location for a project of this nature. I call on the local federal member, the member for Brand Ms King, to front up and listen to her community. Don't allow this community to be divided and its amenity destroyed. Fuel Security 37 13:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Service stations have hiked fuel prices by up to 60c a litre after conflict erupted again in the Middle East. Australians are feeling the pain of the pump, and successive Liberal and Labor governments have left the nation exposed. Under International Energy Agency guidelines, Australia should hold 90 days of oil reserves. Combined onshore and offshore, we have just 50 days. Onshore, there are only 25 days of diesel, 26 days of petrol and just 20 days of jet fuel. Despite this, Energy Minister Chris Bowen claimed this week that Australia's fuel supplies are in good stock. What nonsense! Our fuel security is in terrible condition. If global supply is cut, the country would grind to a halt in three weeks. The government is desperate to avoid scrutiny of its failures. That's why Labor and the Greens combined to shut down One Nation's inquiry into Australia's fuel reserves and refining. Only two refineries remain: Brisbane and Geelong. Net zero policies have made domestic refining too expensive. Scrap net zero and Australia will refine its own fuel again. Minister Bowen also told Australians that there is no need to rush to the service station, showing how out of touch Labor is. Interest rates are rising, groceries cost more every week and households are going broke. Minister Bowen has no idea and is out of his depth. His message was that there is no urgency. Australians are now paying up to 60c a litre more, and it could get worse. The government collects 51.6c per litre in fuel excise. One Nation was elected on a policy to halve that tax, cutting 26c a litre immediately, with compensation for any truckies and farmers losing rebates. The Morrison government took our advice in 2022 for six months but didn't look after truckies and farmers. It's time for the Albanese government to do the same and deliver cheaper fuel for Australians in 2026. International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 38 13:54 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Earlier this year, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney delivered these words: We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation. The powerful have their power. But we have something too—the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together. It's no wonder then that the Canadian government made it clear here today that they want no part of AUKUS. AUKUS is all about nostalgia and pretending—nostalgia for the colonial empire of the UK in the Pacific, and pretending that Trump is our mate who will care about peace in the region. It's a fantasy, just like the submarines we'll never get. Maybe that's why Canada rejected it. They made the correct call—that joining AUKUS wouldn't make them a US ally; it would make them a US hostage. In fact, Canada went one step further, with defence minister McGuinty making it clear by saying: Right now we're very busy building bridges between Canada and other middle powers, Philippines, Korea, Japan, India as I mentioned, we're here in Australia. Just imagine that. Imagine a foreign policy directed by your own country not Washington. Imagine working with like-minded countries in the region to further the aims of peace and stability, and that is only possible if we exit AUKUS. Right now, the war parties—Labor, Liberal, One Nation—are dragging us into another US forever war. Australian troops are stationed on US nuclear submarines right now—ones going around our region and blowing ships out of the water. Today, the Canadian PM said: … the question today for middle powers like us is whether we establish the conventions and help write the new rules that will determine our security and prosperity or let the hegemons dictate outcomes. In this argument, the Greens are on Carney's side. While the war parties are backing— (Time expired) Cybersafety 38 13:56 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania On 20 January, new hate speech laws were passed on the wake of a horrific, hateful act of antisemitic terrorism. Whether people agree with those laws or not, the conversation reflects a broader need to deal with hate and violence in Australia, including online. But, with how complex our online world has become, laws alone can't do all the work. Alongside regulation, we also need sensible, commonsense ways to help people understand what they're actually seeing, especially online, where so much hate is spread. One simple step I think we need to take is labelling bots on social media. Right now, when I scroll through posts of Senator Hanson collapsing tragically on the Senate floor—which is green, by you—it really needs to show whether a real person or a bot has made that picture. I know I'm not the only one. Bots can't post around-the-clock, start arguments and amplify hateful views to seem more popular than they really are. Labelling bots wouldn't stop anyone from speaking. It wouldn't delete content or shut down debate. If you know a comment is coming from a bot—like Senator Hanson falling on the Senate floor—you can take that into account instead of assuming it reflects genuine public opinion. That kind of transparency supports the aim of the new hate speech laws by reducing harm in a quieter, more practical way. Rather than relying only on enforcement, it helps people make informed decisions for themselves. It also ties directly into digital literacy. When people understand how automation and manipulation work online, they're more equipped to think critically and less likely to be pulled into hate or violence. To help combat hatred in this country, we need to look at our online spaces more critically, and that's why I'm pushing to label bot accounts so we know when we're engaging with real people and when we're engaging with machines. Amazon Flex 38 13:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Walking on eggshells constantly, deactivated without any meaningful opportunity to respond, putting drivers in unsafe and unworkable situations, and prioritisation of speed and volume over driver safety—that's what Amazon Flex drivers have told me about their workplace conditions. Amazon Flex is undercutting established transport companies by ripping off their contractors and owner-drivers. On top of that, these platform workers don't have minimum wage, workers' compensation, sick leave or right of reinstatement. Despite these clearly deadly and exploitative practices, billionaires like Jeff Bezos show no sign of turning back, with Amazon Flex recently entering into partnership with Harris Farm Markets. Amazon needs to start funding fair standards in their supply chain. They need to pay up. That's why today hundreds of members of the Transport Workers Union are protesting at Amazon sites around the country. They want to reach a deal with the TWU, Doordash and Uber, and I back them to the hilt. The Albanese government passed laws to prevent platform workers from being unfairly deactivated, to give the Fair Work Commission the power to approve collective agreements to cover these workers and to give the commissioner power to set world-leading minimum standards— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 39 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 39 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will immediately invite the Ukrainian delegation. We're very privileged to have you here. The Ukrainian ambassador is here; the delegation is led by Dr Galyna Mykhailiuk. You are most welcome in the Australian Senate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 39 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 39 14:00 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the Treasurer said in February, and I'm quoting directly: … the pressure on the economy, the upward revision, is because of faster-than-expected private demand at the same time as public demand taking a back seat, is actually retreating. Yesterday's national accounts show the opposite. Public demand grew at more than twice the rate of private demand in the December quarter, just as it did in September. The Treasury made that claim to justify a rate rise which hurt millions of mortgage holders. The official data contradict them directly. Will you stand by that claim or admit he was wrong? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bragg for the question. If you look at the data in annual terms, private demand grew faster than public demand, and it has been shown not only in the national accounts but in other economic data as well. I would also point out to Senator Bragg, considering that they were going to have deeper deficits and higher debt under their plan for the economy that they took to the election, that, if we take your concern and apply it to the policies you took to the last election, then we would be in a much worse position. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Bragg? Senator Bragg 256063 I have a point of order on relevance. The question was quite clear. Will the government stand by the claim or admit that they were wrong? The PRESIDENT 112096 There was a preamble. I'll remind the minister to focus on the whole of your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING Of course I support the comments by the Treasurer. As I have just explained, if you look at the data—not only in the national accounts but other economic data—and if you look at the contribution to growth that both public and private demand made, which in yesterday's data release was 0.3 for public demand and 0.3 for private demand, in annual contribution to growth, public demand was 0.7, and private demand in annual growth was 2.3. So, yes, the Treasurer is correct. So, I've answered the question directly. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I have, Senator Cash. The other point I made is that, that based on the economic geniuses of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the plan they took to the election last year, which was overwhelmingly rejected, had deeper deficits and higher debt because— Senator Wong 00AOU And higher taxes. Senator GALLAGHER ING and higher taxes, as Senator Wong points out—if people remember, they wanted to borrow to build nuclear power stations. Under your plan, they would be much worse off. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales (): Public sector demand is at an all-time record share of the economy, and it is accelerating. The Treasurer said it was retreating. Minister, which is right, the Treasurer or the national accounts? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Treasurer is correct. And the other point that I take about this line of questioning, including the concerns that the opposition have now—I mean, these are concerns that they didn't have when they were actually in government—about wages, which were raised yesterday, and public spending was that, as you know— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, you weren't too concerned about real wages when you were in government, Senator Hume. But the other concern they have is around public spending. As you know and as is drawn out by the ABS data and identified by the ABS—if you don't want to believe the government, believe the ABS—the investment was in defence spending. So now you've added that to your list of things that you don't support, which I find—ah, interesting. The contribution made in Commonwealth public demand was in defence spending, which is something you clearly don't support. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary. 14:05 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, if the Treasurer can't accurately describe what's happening in this economy, how can Australians have any confidence in this government's economic management, particularly when households are being hit with higher mortgages, higher rents and higher taxes all at the same time? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Australian community got an opportunity to make a decision about whose economic plan they supported, and they made that choice, and it was about a government that invests in essential services, helps things that you don't support—cost-of-living support, which, again, you don't support—and manages the budget responsibly, delivers surpluses, pays down debt and reduces the deficit. That is what the Australian people voted for: a government of adults, not a group that squabbles and trips over itself to get up to the Sky News interview to bag each other, and not for a plan that told everyone that all the women of Australia were bludgers and weren't allowed to work from home—but oh, if you didn't work from home and you weren't allowed to work from home, you could work part time; that was the other gem in that policy announcement: you're not entitled to work full time; you can work part time. The Australian people made their judgement, and they supported our plan. Middle East 40 14:06 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. It's clear the conflict in the Middle East is not likely to end quickly. Iran continues to attack countries in the region, and travel disruptions continue. Can the minister please provide an update on the conflict and how the Albanese Labor government is supporting Australians who are impacted? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator O'Neill for her question and, if I may, also thank her for her work as one of the conveners of the Parliamentary Friends of Ukraine and again welcome to the Senate our friends from Ukraine, including Dr Mykhailiuk. Thank you to you and your delegation for being here. We stand with Ukraine. Iran's reprisal attacks have continued to escalate at a scale and breadth we have not seen before, now attacking 11 countries. The UAE alone has been forced to intercept more than a thousand drones and rockets. The Iranian regime's intensifying hostile attacks are on countries that have nothing to do with the US and Israeli strikes. Countries in the region are now being forced to defend themselves. Australia supported action that prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and from continuing to threaten international peace and security. It is clear that this conflict is now widening. Australia is not participating in the US strikes, and we have been clear that we are not sending Australian troops into Iran. The first priority of our government is and always will be to protect Australians and keep them safe at home and overseas. We have 115,000 Australians in the Middle East, 24,000 of them in the UAE. As we have said, we have been working on contingencies to keep Australians safe and get travellers home. We've sent DFAT personnel to the region as part of crisis response teams. They are on the ground providing medical and consular support. We have already deployed military assets as part of our contingency planning earlier this week. We will continue to look at all options that we have available to us, engaging partners and taking action to support efforts to keep Australians safe. I regret that the conflict is likely to get worse before it gets better, and we call on all parties to uphold international humanitarian law and to protect civilian life. Our hope is that we will see, in the near term, a return to dialogue and diplomacy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary. 14:09 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Many of us were emotional seeing those images last night of Australians returning home. It's clear that the Albanese Labor government's top priorities are keeping Australians safe and working to give help to Australians who need it. What is the government doing to support Australians in the region? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator O'Neill, and you're correct. I think so many of us were moved by the images of more than 200 Australians greeting loved ones in Sydney. I can confirm that another flight left Dubai this morning with hundreds of Australians on board. At this stage, another two flights are scheduled to depart for Australia today if conditions permit. We understand that the UAE and airlines are working hard to put on flights out of the region. They also need to of course make sure that flights can safely depart. Obviously, the situation is enormously difficult while the region is under attack by the Iranian regime; however, commercial flights continue to be the fastest way to help Australians leave the Middle East at scale. There are many more thousands of Australians waiting for flights to come home. This will continue to be a challenging time for many Australians, and travel disruptions could persist for some time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Minister Wong, you have said throughout the week that travel disruptions could go on for some time as the conflict continues. Could you please provide an update on what else the Albanese Labor government is doing, particularly by engaging international partners, to help support Australians? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As Senator O'Neill says, our government's first priority is keeping Australians safe. We are working around the clock to help Australians who need it. I am in touch with our partners in the region to engage on efforts to support Australians impacted by travel disruption. Yesterday the Prime Minister and I spoke with our counterparts in the UAE, and last night I spoke to my counterparts in Jordan and Israel, to discuss Iran's escalating reprisal attacks and to engage on efforts to support Australians impacted by travel disruptions. Earlier this morning, I spoke jointly to my counterparts from the United Kingdom and Canada. We agreed to coordinate closely, as we always have, on support for our citizens in the region. We continue to do all we can to support Australians impacted by travel disruptions. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 41 14:11 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minster for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Recent reports tell of a Lebanese man who was convicted of inappropriately touching a 15-year-old girl in Australia and has won the right to remain in the country. Lucien Daher visa's was cancelled by the government, but this was overturned last week by the Administrative Review Tribunal. What actions is the minister taking now to ensure Mr Daher's visa is cancelled and that a message is sent to all visa holders that you cannot come here and expect to stay if you commit sexual crimes against children? 14:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Duniam, for the question. I don't have any specifics on that particular case, but I'll see what I can make available either during or after question time. Obviously, I'll also need to consider what information can be provided publicly about an individual. You would be aware that we don't normally comment publicly on individual cases, but as Senator Duniam—and I'm sure the whole chamber—would be aware, this government has taken action in relation to previous practices and decisions of the AAT, as it was then known, to overturn cancellations of visas when those visas had been cancelled by ministers or departmental officials. The government took action—I think it was at least 12 months ago—to put in place a new ministerial direction that altered the circumstances that should be taken into account by the now ART when it's making these sorts of decisions. This has opened up opportunities for ministers to take action if the situation requires it. As I say, that's a general statement on these sorts of matters. If there is anything I can provide you on the specifics, I'll come back to you as quickly as I can. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The 15-year-old girl who was the victim of this crime has said that she's been left feeling scared, worried and worthless after Mr Daher's repeated crimes against her. Will the Minister for Home Affairs personally intervene under section 501 of the Migration Act to cancel this visa in the interest of Australians? 14:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As follows from my first answer, again, whatever information I can put on the record, I will do so as quickly as I can. Again, I will make the point that this government has a very strong track record when it comes to the cancellation of visas. We all remember, in the last term, when our old friend Mr Dutton was still the leader of the opposition, it turned out that, for all the attacks that Mr Dutton and the opposition undertook against the government regarding visa cancellations, in fact our government cancelled significantly more visas than ever occurred when Mr Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs. I know, for many of you, 'Mr Peter Dutton' are three words you'd rather forget and not ever hear mentioned again, but the reality is this government has had a stronger record on visa cancellations than what occurred under the coalition when they had the opportunity to take action. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a final supplementary? 14:15 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My final question on this serious issue: Mr Daher was sentenced to a two-year correction order and fined for a crime that has left a young girl living in fear. How does the government reconcile this decision with its stated commitment to prioritising the safety of Australian children and the broader community? 14:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Duniam is seeking specifics which I will answer if I can. It is worth remembering also that any case before the ART concerning a cancelled visa, by necessity, involves a decision made by a minister or department to cancel that visa. So without knowing the specifics of this individual case, what must have occurred is that a decision was made either by the minister or the department to cancel this individual's visa, demonstrating the view that the minister or the department had about that case. That was obviously then overturned by the ART. As I say, I will bring back any information that I can about the specific case. But to reinforce the point that I have made, under this government, in 2024-25, 85 visas were cancelled by ministers compared to 20 in the year 2021. Defence 42 14:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. This morning a US attack class nuclear submarine fired a torpedo and sank an Iranian frigate in international waters off the coast of Sri Lanka. The most recent data from your government says there were between 50 to 100 Australian personnel currently embedded on US nuclear-powered attack submarines in the region. Were any Australian personnel on this US submarine when it sank the Iranian frigate and left the survivors to drown? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have seen those reports and I have also seen, before I came to question time, what the US has said about why that vessel was sunk and what it was preparing to strike. I would refer you to that. The US submarine operations are a matter for the United States. You ask about Australian Defence Force personnel. As I have told you before in a number of other contexts, for operational and security reasons, we do not disclose specific information regarding Australian personnel. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary? 14:17 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales No answer. On Monday morning, two American P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance planes flew from the US military base in Diego Garcia. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, please resume your seat until I get order. You have the right to be heard in silence. Start the question again, Senator Shoebridge, and I expect Senator Shoebridge to be heard in silence. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 On Monday morning, two American P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance planes flew from the US military base in Diego Garcia—a main base for the US operations in their illegal war against Iran—to RAAF Base Pearce just outside of Perth. Were these planes used in the bombing of Iran? And will the government take the same steps as the Spanish government, which actually has some ticker, and prohibit the US from using our bases to conduct the war in Iran? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have a few points. First, obviously, in relation to Diego Garcia, I would refer you to Prime Minister Starmer's and the United Kingdom government's statements about the use of that base. Second, in relation to the US aircraft that you reference, I would say as a general proposition—I know that Greens political party do not agree with this but—US aircraft have been visiting Australia for decades undertaking a range of activities and tasks. This is a longstanding feature of our cooperation with the United States. It occurs in accordance with well-understood policies and procedures and, if I may, with full respect for Australian sovereignty. So that is our response in relation to that. I've already made clear, as has the Prime Minister, that Australia did not participate in the strikes on Iran. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Sorry, Senator Shoebridge. Resume your seat, please. I made sure that Senator Shoebridge was able to ask his question in complete silence, and that is what I expect when his second question is asked and when the minister gets up to respond. 14:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, it's clear that your government's commitment to AUKUS has denied our country the ability to make independent foreign policy decisions. The Canadian Prime Minister asked today: 'Will middle powers come together to stand up for collective values, or will we let the hegemons dictate outcomes?' Minister, will your government let the US decide our policy, or will you cancel AUKUS? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm waiting to call the minister, and there needs to be silence. 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make a few points, if I may, Senator Shoebridge. The first is on the question of sovereignty. Unlike you, we do not believe that sovereignty means isolation. What it does mean is that Australian governments can make their decisions about what Australia does or does not do. And I would refer you, because, I assume, you do look at these matters, to the various statements that the Deputy Prime Minister has made, including in the House—my recollection is: a ministerial statement or similar—where he outlines the way in which the sovereignty arrangements have been updated for us, for the country, in relation to AUKUS but built on the existing sovereignty arrangements which exist. So I disagree with you on the basic premise of your question, which I think sets up a false binary that says: 'You can't have an alliance and be a sovereign nation.' Actually, alliances are about protecting your sovereignty, because they are about making sure that you can— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, the question was clear. Acknowledging the very real impact of sovereignty on Australia, with US nuclear submarines stationed here—we built the bases for them: $8 billion of Australian public money for building the bases for US nuclear submarines—how do you match our utter dependence on the United States, on personnel, on procurement, and our inability to stand up with an illegal war? How do you really match our utter dependence as a vassal with any kind of independent sovereignty? (Time expired) 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What this government always seeks to do is to ensure the safety and security of Australians and of this country. Unlike you, we don't believe that that is lessened through an alliance; in fact, we recognise the benefit that the alliance can bring—recognising that we always have to have it within an appropriate sovereignty framework. You have so many examples, including from the country represented today in the chamber, of what can happen if deterrence is insufficient. We will invest in deterrence, because, to keep the peace, you need also to have strong deterrence, and deterrence is part of ensuring peace and stability. And that is what we seek to do. Economy 43 14:23 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government is focused on growing the economy, repairing the budget and delivering practical support for Australians, all while continuing to invest in essential services and long-term national priorities. Can the minister explain how responsible economic management is enabling the government to deliver on the commitments made to the Australian people? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question and for all the work she does across government, and for the good people of South Australia in representing them, and for the advocacy she provides on cost-of-living support and in the economic debate. So thank you very much. It's an important question. When it comes to economic management, how we manage the budget and how we deliver on our commitments are all interlinked. When we came to government, one of our first priorities was to get the budget in much better shape. And we have done that. The budget is $233 billion better off cumulatively over seven years to 2028-29 than the budget we inherited. There's also $176 billion less debt than was forecast prior to the 2022 election, and we are saving the nation around $60 billion in expected interest cost based on those forecasts. That was the first bit: to try and get the budget in better shape. We've delivered two surpluses, and we've lowered the deficits. That work continues. We've been finding savings and repairing the budget over time. That has allowed us to focus on those commitments we made to the Australian people in the first term: looking at how we get wages moving again; looking at how we address all of the failures of the health system, particularly with Medicare, due to the failure of those opposite to invest; and dealing with the investment in defence that we need—again, due to neglect from those opposite, who announced a lot of defence programs but never actually found the money to underpin and pay for those programs. The Deputy Prime Minister worked to get the defence program back on track with billions of dollars of extra investment to make sure that our national security is not compromised. We also looked at education. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The Albanese Labor government is delivering practical support through investments across health, housing and education. Can the minister explain why protecting investment in essential services is so important and what the consequences would be for Australians if those services weren't available? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question. When those opposite complain about the spending that occurs in the Commonwealth budget—and I hear it repeatedly—they are criticising: increases to the age pension; cheaper childcare for families, which we know they are against; the pay rise for early childhood educators; our cheaper medicines, which we saw them vote against in this place; record investment in public hospitals; funding for new medicines on the PBS; expanding PPL and paying super on PPL; expanding access to training, including free TAFE; prac payments for nursing, teaching and social work students; and wiping billions of dollars from student debts. They're opposed to our housing agenda. Those opposite see all of this as wasteful; we see it as funding essential services. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, budget choices reflect values, particularly when it comes to essential services and cost-of-living support. Can you outline how these investments are supporting Australians and what Australians would lose if a different approach was taken? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question. The answer is that I can, because, two days before the last election, when Mr Taylor and Senator Hume snuck out the coalition's costings, we saw what they were going to cut, and we see them opposing spending now. They would have cut the three-day guarantee for parents. They would have cut 41,000 frontline workers across the Public Service. They would have cut student debt relief. They would have cut free TAFE. They would have cut the Commonwealth prac payment. They would have cut cheaper home batteries. They would have cut five per cent deposits. They would have cut the Help to Buy program, the build-to-rent program, the National Reconstruction Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund. They would have cut production tax credits, and they would have cut infrastructure spending. To top all that off, they were going to repeal the tax cuts. They went to the last election saying that they wanted people to pay higher taxes with bigger deficits and more debt. It was quite the achievement. We will continue to deliver for the Australian people. Nuclear Weapons 44 14:29 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. As part of AUKUS arrangements, you are planning to host US nuclear-capable, long-range supersonic B-52 bombers at RAAF Tindal in the NT as well as US Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling in WA. These submarines could become nuclear capable, like the B-52s, as well as nuclear fuelled in the near future. In its national platform, Labor recognises that nuclear weapons pose significant risks to this country. Given this, will you require the US to declare whether any of their visiting platforms are carrying nuclear weapons? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Thorpe for the question. She references our platform and our consistent position over many years about the importance of non-proliferation. We have been strong advocates for both nuclear and non-nuclear states to comply with their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. We've also been advocates for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty coming into force, and we are a friend of that. In relation to the submarines that you describe, obviously the US is well aware of Australia's position. While the submarines are obviously US submarines, and we can't comment for them, the US is aware of Australia's position. I would emphasise that AUKUS, which you started with, is for the provision of nuclear powered submarines, not nuclear armed submarines, and it is very important. I'm not suggesting you are, Senator Thorpe, but there are some other countries who've sought to blur that distinction as part of their anti-AUKUS position. We have been very clear: Australia never seeks, and will not seek, to be nuclear armed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria If the government will not require transparency regarding the presence of nuclear weapons in this country, do you therefore accept that nuclear weapons could be launched by planes or submarines being based or hosted by Australia? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Australia does not seek to be nuclear armed, full stop. We don't. 14:32 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria In the eighties, Malcolm Fraser required foreign military forces, including visiting US aircraft, to be unarmed and carry no bombs—meaning nuclear bombs. This request was complied with. Given Labor's supposed opposition to nuclear weapons, would you consider requesting the same? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, Senator Thorpe, what I would say is that the United States and all parties are aware of Australia's position in relation to nuclear weapons. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 45 14:32 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Industry stakeholders estimate that cost blowouts linked to the CFMEU conduct on construction sites can be as much as 30 per cent. The CFMEU's involvement on Victoria's Big Build has been conservatively estimated as costing the Victoria taxpayer $15 billion. Minister, with billions of Commonwealth taxpayer dollars being allocated for infrastructure projects right across Australia, has the government quantified the cost impact of CFMEU driven practices on federally funded infrastructure projects? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McKenzie for the question. I think it probably falls more appropriately within the minister for infrastructure's portfolio, but I will be as helpful as I can. We have seen the numbers that have been circulated in public. They're not numbers where I'm aware of the basis for them, but I can confirm that Minister King has written to her state and territory counterparts on multiple occasions reinforcing obligations under the federation funding agreement schedule on land transport infrastructure projects and the need to report instances of suspected criminal behaviour or corruption to the relevant regulator and the department. Minister King has also written, where appropriate, to government business enterprises involved in the delivery of Commonwealth led infrastructure projects, outlining expectations that all instances of suspected criminal behaviour or corruption are reported to the relevant regulator and/or department. We've also sought assurance that procurement— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 I have a point of order on relevance. I wrote to Minister King about this issue 18 months ago, so I understand— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, writing to Minister King is not relevant. Senator McKenzie 207825 No, relevance. The question was to quantify the cost impact for Commonwealth funded infrastructure projects, not on the correspondence register of Minister King. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I have advised many senators on many occasions before that, when you call a point of order, it's not about giving a statement. It is just drawing my attention to a point of order around a question. The minister is being relevant to your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING As I said at the outset, the numbers that were cited by Senator McKenzie are not Commonwealth numbers or ones where we are aware of the basis for them. So my answer is reinforcing the action that has been taken on federal funds, where they are used on infrastructure projects that are managed by the states. The Commonwealth has consistently sent the message and reminded ministers and others about the requirements for any concerns relating to conduct or allegations of criminal activity to be reported to the regulator. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria At a time when inflation remains persistently high and Australians are suffering a cost-of-living crisis, public sector demand is now at an all-time record share of the economy. Why isn't the government doing more to ensure that taxpayer funded construction projects are delivered free from coercive or inflationary practices so that public spending is not adding further pressure to prices? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We've made it very clear, where it involves Commonwealth funding, that projects are appropriately scoped and costed before the Commonwealth partners and provides project funding and that the project agreement clearly sets out the expectations of the Commonwealth. Where and if people have concerns—for example, if you have concerns, Senator McKenzie, about particular projects—then it's up to them to make those concerns clear, and the Commonwealth would look— Senator McKenzie 207825 That's what we're doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, not just raising a question. Senator GALLAGHER ING No. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie and Senator Hume, stop interjecting. I can't be any plainer than that. Stop. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Commonwealth is fulfilling our responsibilities to make sure that projects are appropriately scoped, and, where funding is provided and we are satisfied that those businesses cases and the work that's being done scopes the project out correctly, we provide funding, and then there is a funding agreement which must be adhered to by the relevant entity. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:38 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Which doesn't mention the CFMEU. Minister, have you ever personally benefited from a donation—actual or in-kind—sponsorship or patronage from the CFMEU? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Excuse me, I have Senator Wong on her feet. I expect the chamber to come to order. Senator Wong 00AOU I have a point of order. That, in my submission, is not supplementary to the primary that was asked. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, I have checked with the Clerk, and his view is that it's not related to the primary or the first question. I will invite— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I believe that I am speaking. I will invite Minister Gallagher to answer the question in whatever way she thinks. 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The only answer I can provide there, noting that it's not linked to the earlier questions, is that all donations provided to the Labor Party are disclosed in accordance with disclosure guidelines—well, disclosure laws. Fuel Security 46 14:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, as the conflict involving Iran drives oil prices higher amid an effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Australians are already paying more at the bowser and in the supermarket. Official analysis released under the Albanese government has highlighted that Australia's fuel reserves are dangerously low by international standards, with roughly 26 days of petrol, 25 days of diesel and 20 days of aviation fuel onshore—far short of what a serious crisis would demand. Yet this week the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, told Australians, 'We have a good stock of petrol in reserve.' Can the Prime Minister advise who is telling the truth, the government's own fuel security experts or the most incompetent energy minister we have ever had, Minister Bowen? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, that is a personal reflection on a minister. Please withdraw. Senator HANSON BK6 I withdraw. 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First I'd make the point that, in fact, Australia is now holding more stocks of aviation fuel, petrol and diesel on land and in ports in Australia than at any time in the last 15 years. I know that you have a view that you need to attack the Labor government, but I note you were very quiet about this, if I may say, when the coalition was in government. We actually have— Senator Hanson BK6 You're wrong; don't mislead this parliament. Senator WONG 00AOU If I'm wrong, I'm happy to hear you. I'm happy to hear you if I'm wrong on that, but I don't recall this being something that you attacked Mr Taylor about when he was the energy minister. I'd again say Australia is fuel secure. We hold more stocks of aviation fuel, petrol and diesel on land and in ports in Australia than at any time in the last 15 years. Senator Hanson does— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The interjections across the chamber are incredibly disorderly. I'm asking you all to stop. Senator WONG 00AOU The senator does raise an important issue, which is that one of the consequences or risks associated with this is the conflict in the Middle East, which has implications not only because of the transit of oil through the Strait of Hormuz but also because of the impact on economic and financial markets, global markets for fuel, which react not only to that risk but also to the Iranian targeting of hydrocarbon infrastructure in the region. You're right, that is a challenge. The government is very aware of that. We are very aware that these developments have added to the uncertainty in the global economy. I'd make a few points: we have established an Australian domestic fuel reserve, we are finalising a gas reservation, we are closely monitoring developments in the Middle East, including fuel impacts, and we've secured more affordable gas for Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland According to a government liquid fuel security review, diesel is the fuel we have the lowest capacity to produce domestically. Given that your government has left Australia with only 25 days of diesel, how can the Prime Minister keep backing Minister Bowen's claim about good fuel stocks when your own fuel security experts warn that defence, food supply, hospitals and emergency services are at risk if the ships stop coming? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Hanson, I'd again say to you that in relation to how much of our stockholding obligations we have compared to the minimum obligations—what we are required to hold and what we hold—the advice to me is that diesel is at 116 per cent of those holding obligations. We understand the potential risk to the global economy and markets for energy that this conflict is causing, so of course we will continue to take action. This includes the ACCC being asked for assistance in terms of avoiding the price gouging of consumers. We also, as you know, have put in place coal and gas price caps and have established domestic fuel reserves for diesel, petrol and jet fuel in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:44 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Under an international arrangement, we're supposed to have 90 days fuel supply. It was your government that changed it, so you've lowered the standard. Minister, will the Prime Minister admit Labor's recklessness net zero energy policy has left Australia incapable of fulfilling its own security needs in the event of a crisis and abandon the destructive ideological obsession with net zero? I must also say that, under Labor, you actually got rid of three fuel refineries. 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, my recollection is actually that four out of six closed under the coalition. Senator Ayres pointed that out yesterday. But, do you see, this is the problem, Senator. The advice to me is, as I've said, that we hold more fuel than at any time in the past 15 years. In your desire to attack the Labor government, you forgive the sins of Mr Taylor but you attack the Labor government. Now, it's fine if you wish to do that, but I think it demonstrates where your political allegiances really lie. Fuel Security 47 14:45 Senator MULHOLLAND 277110 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted oil and gas exports. This includes halting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for more than 20 per cent of global oil and gas trade. Minister, to what extent is Australia exposed to international energy market disruption? Can the minister confirm that Australia's fuel supply is secure? 14:46 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you to Senator Mulholland for that question in relation to international oil markets and fuel security. I can say that this government has made sure that Australia is more fuel secure that it has been in a generation. After the previous government and Mr Taylor and Mr Morrison's joint leadership of the energy portfolio in secret utterly failed to manage our obligations to keep Australians fuel secure, we implemented the Minimum Stockholding Obligation, which the previous— Senator AYRES 16913 But you never implemented it, Senator Paterson. It was words, but you never implemented it. As a result of that, we have 1.5 billion litres of petrol on hand and three billion litres of diesel in our Minimum Stockholding Obligation—in effect, a strategic reserve. I understand why the coalition is so sensitive about this proposition and why they join with One Nation to go around trying to frighten little old ladies about it. They try and profit from conflict and profit from trying to create a sense of crisis, when they never did anything themselves. The person most responsible for 'never doing nothing' was Mr Taylor, the member for Hume, who is now their leader. I'm not as posh as you, Senator McGrath; I just say it the way I want to say it: he never did nothing. He put our fuel reserve in Texas. That was his contribution to Australia's fuel security—a made-up fuel reserve. It may be in El Paso—I don't know—but it's somewhere in Texas. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Mulholland, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator MULHOLLAND 277110 Queensland One of the key drivers of Australian petrol prices is the international oil price. Minister, what is the expected impact on petrol prices of more expensive oil from the current conflict and what is the Albanese Labor government doing to prevent price gouging by petrol retailers? 14:48 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What we did, Senator Canavan, was implement the Minimum Stockholding Obligation. We delivered a national fuel reserve. You never did nothing. All talk, no action—that's the problem. Silent—utterly silent—over the course of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, when nothing ever happened. We went backwards in fuel security terms under your government, and Mr Taylor was more responsible than any other person for that utter failure of policy action and for leaving Australia weaker, with no reservation strategy, no strategy on gas, no strategy on fuel, no strategy on diesel. Yet there you are, trying to defend the indefensible. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Ayres, resume your seat. Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M Senator Ayres almost took my point of order for me. Point of order, Madam Chair: as much as I think we're all enjoying Senator Ayres's therapeutic performance, could he please direct his comments through you, the Chair, as opposed to conducting a dialogue? The PRESIDENT 112096 On a similar point, could members on my right also stop interjecting. Minister Ayres, please continue and direct your comments to me. Senator AYRES 16913 Well, in the seven seconds that remain to me, I certainly will do that. We are very focused—directing the ACCC to focus on price gouging. I'm sure I'll get another chance in a— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Mulholland— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, when you are quite finished—particularly as I have asked you to be quiet. Senator Mulholland, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator MULHOLLAND 277110 Queensland These are indeed uncertain international times, and many Australians are looking to the government for information. Minister, why is it important for the government to clearly communicate the facts, and what risks does fearmongering pose the Australian community? We heard a little bit before. 14:50 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I thank the senator for her question. Of course, at this time, it underscores why strategy, action and implementation in relation to fuel reserves and minimum stockholdings are absolutely important. You can see what's happening in the international markets, where international leaders are moving to reassure customers, companies and countries about their fuel obligations and what is going on in a very difficult environment, where Iran has attacked, as the Foreign minister indicated earlier, 11 countries in that region, and that does have knock-on effects. It does mean that there is a dividend that we need to concentrate on now. That is delivered by firm action. President Trump, for example, is out there offering assurances in relation to these issues, but what we see is something very different from One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals. (Time expired) Health Care 49 14:51 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Yesterday, I tabled a petition signed by more than 27,000 people calling on the government to honour its bipartisan commitment to establish proton beam therapy in Australia. Proton beam therapy is a life-saving cancer treatment. Yet, right now, Australians, including children and their families, are being forced to travel overseas to access the treatment or go without it altogether. Despite this, the government's response to the tabling of the petition was to simply say that it is waiting for the states to come back with a plan. Minister, can you explain why the Albanese government is simply waiting for the states to have a plan instead of leading the charge to ensure this life-saving treatment is available to Australians as promised? 14:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am pleased to hear from Senator Ruston this week. I think it's probably the last coalition question for the week, and Senator Ruston has finally been allocated one. I am pleased that a question about health and— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! I need to be able to hear the minister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 It is indeed a significant issue, and I recognise the impact that the delay in establishing proton beam therapy in Australia is having on patients. I think you will know, Senator Ruston, that, in 2017, the former Commonwealth government—I think that you were a part of that government—announced $68 million to support the establishment of Australia's first proton beam therapy at the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute in Adelaide. That funding was provided to the South Australian government under a federation funding agreement schedule. They, in turn, passed on the funds to the institute. The Australian government isn't party to a contract or agreement for the specific project, and there have been delays in the project. The Commonwealth is working closely with the South Australian government around the future of the project. That includes the recent work that's been undertaken by the South Australian government to explore alternative technology suppliers. Patients who do wish to access proton beam therapy in the meantime can make an application through the Medical Treatment Overseas Program. I conclude my answer by simply saying that we do recognise that this is an important therapy and we do also recognise the consequences that the delay in the project in South Australia is having for patients. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Two-year-old Layla Davis needed proton therapy, but the Albanese government declined her family's request for support to travel overseas for treatment. Her family has been left devastated because they simply can't afford the high cost to fund the travel and treatment themselves. Minister, how many Australian children have been refused support by your government to access proton therapy overseas? 14:55 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Ruston. I don't have that information with me; I'm not briefed on that. If I have information I can provide to you, I will. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, second supplementary? 14:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Minister, cancer patients, particularly young children, do not have the luxury of waiting. The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research was built in Adelaide specifically to deliver this treatment, yet it currently sits empty of the technology it was designed to house. When does the Albanese government expect to receive a plan from the South Australian Malinauskas government to deliver proton therapy at the Bragg Centre? It seems to me that they've had plenty of time to get one. 14:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think Minister Butler has made clear that, given the level of capital—physical capital and human capital, as you refer to—that has been sunk in South Australia, it has been important to give South Australia the opportunity to demonstrate if they have a viable alternative to the original contract. But, as Minister Butler has made clear, at some point the Commonwealth will ask other jurisdictions whether they have a proposal. What is clear is that, wherever the proton therapy is located, it will be a national ability, and the very clear advice at the minister has received from Cancer Australia is that the demand projections over the next several years will require one unit across the country. Whether that is in Adelaide or Sydney or somewhere else, patients, particularly paediatric patients— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 you may wish to listen—with cancer from the entire country will fly to receive the treatment. (Time expired) Apprenticeships 50 14:57 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. When the Albanese government took office, Australia was facing the worst skills shortage in more than half a century. This was having a massive impact on our national priorities of building more homes and more renewable energy projects. A key focus since then has been on increasing apprentice numbers so our country can meet the challenges of the future. How many Australians have signed up for an apprenticeship under the Key Apprenticeship Program? Are there any risks to this program? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks to Senator Walker, who has already demonstrated what a strong force for young Australians she has been as senator for South Australia. After a decade of neglect from the Liberals, Australia had the second-worst skills shortage in all advanced economies. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government hasn't wasted a day in helping Australians to get the skills they want for the jobs we need to fill. That's why we introduced the Key Apprenticeship Program, which pays $10,000 in incentives to new apprentices in the housing and clean energy sectors. Nearly 30,000 Australians have signed up for apprenticeships under the program, and these are the chippies, plumbers, brickies and sparkies we need to build Australian homes and deliver the clean-energy transition. What we learned over the weekend is that this key program, which is helping provide the tradies needed to build the homes our country needs, is one the coalition want to cut. In her first contribution as the new shadow minister for skills and training, Senator Nampijinpa Price told Josh Martin from Channel 7 that the opposition would scrap this vital scheme. They want to scrap the program that is training Australians to become tradies. It seems— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price? Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 Point of order. The minister is misleading the Senate. It is simply untrue. He's lying once more. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator, that isn't a point of order. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Could the Shadow Minister withdraw what she just said at the conclusion of her point of order? You can't say that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry. Because of all the interjections, I did not hear, but I will ask the senator. Senator Nampijinpa Price— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, stop arguing back and forth across the chamber. Thank you. You have asked for a withdrawal, and I will ask the senator. Senator Nampijinpa Price, there was a lot of noise on my right, and I didn't hear, but I'm sure that, if there were something that you said that was unparliamentary, you would withdraw. The Clerk has advised me that you should withdraw. Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator WATT 245759 It does seem that Senator Nampijinpa Price is another of the coalition members who haven't yet read the Liberal Party's secret review, which I tabled here on Tuesday. Recommendation 6 of the secret review states: The Federal Parliamentary Party, which has the privilege of determining the Party's federal policies, must in future and especially in opposition … consult with the Party Organisation on the formulation of policy, and … do so in a timely manner. It is clear that there was a significant breakdown in the required consultation process, to the detriment of the 2025 campaign. The Parliamentary leader needs to account for the development of sound policy to the Party. So the question is: did the opposition leader know about this new coalition policy to scrap this key program, or was this more freelancing from Senator Nampijinpa Price, just like her support for making Australia great again in the election campaign that went so well? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walker, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia While there is no doubt that signing Australian tradies up to apprenticeships is important, it is also critical to support them to finish their trades as well. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walker, I'm sorry— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I've got a senator on her feet, halfway through asking a question. I can't hear the question, because of the interjections. Senator Walker, would you begin the question again, please. Senator WALKER 316818 While there is no doubt that signing Australian tradies up to apprenticeships is important, it is also critical to support them to finish their trades as well. What evidence is there that the program is working? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Walker. We've already heard from Australian tradies who love this program—providing the tools they need to succeed early on in their careers. The clean energy stream has a retention rate of 85 per cent after the first year, which is above average for comparable periods. Now, we've seen Senator Nampijinpa Price, as the new shadow minister, make her position clear on this program. She seems to see it as wasteful spending. We know the Liberals' secret election review found that young people and multicultural Australians had deserted the party at the last election. I'll give you some free advice: scrapping a program designed to help young people into apprenticeships to boost housing supply is probably not the way to win over young voters, and promoting someone like Senator Nampijinpa Price is an interesting message to send to all those Indian Australians after her offensive remarks about them only a few months ago. The Liberals never learn, and that's why Australians are leaving them in droves. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walker, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia What else is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians get the skills they want for the jobs our nation needs? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Labor is proudly the party of free TAFE, because we believe that investing in the future generations of workers in this country is a worthwhile endeavour. Whether it's free TAFE or our Key Apprenticeship Program, the Albanese government is delivering. The fact that Senator Nampijinpa Price, as the new shadow minister, wants to scrap this scheme because, in her words, 'spending money increases inflation' really shows the lack of depth on the frontbench of the coalition. Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order—Minister Watt knows this to be untrue. It's impugning— The PRESIDENT 112096 No— Senator Henderson ZN4 the reputation of another senator. It's completely untrue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, resume your seat. This is twice today the opposition has immediately sprung into a debating point. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, it's not a point of order. Senator WATT 245759 As I've already observed this week, I cannot tell you how happy we are about this new frontbench that has emerged under Mr Taylor, and that's because every person the Liberals' secret review found to have failed has now been promoted. The bloke who opposed tax cuts and dreamed up free lunches for bosses—he's now the Leader of the Liberal Party; the woman who wanted to ban 'work from home' is now his deputy, but she doesn't really get much of a chance to ask a question as the deputy; and the woman who wanted to make Australia great again is already announcing cuts to crucial apprenticeship programs. Senator Henderson ZN4 On direct relevance, there is no way that this can be argued—that this is directly relevant to the question. It's an absolute outrage! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, the minister is being relevant to the question. Minister, you have eight seconds left. Senator WATT 245759 So every loser who let them lose has been promoted, and again it makes you feel for the people who understood what the secret review said and have now been demoted. Senator Wong 00AOU On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the NoticePaper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Nuclear Weapons 51 15:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I wish to add to an answer I gave to Senator Thorpe in question time today in relation to US nuclear-capable submarines and bombers. Australia continues to fully comply with our international obligations. The United States understands and respects our obligations regarding nuclear weapons. The United States does not station nuclear weapons in Australia. The stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, known as the Treaty of Rarotonga, to which Australia remains committed. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 52 15:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I would just like to add to the answer that I provided to Senator Duniam's question earlier. What I can say is that the government is aware of this case that Senator Duniam was asking about and, earlier this week, requested a brief from the department so that cancellation of that person's visa can again be considered. STATEMENTS 52 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 52 15:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to correct an error I made in my question on Monday. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 On Monday in question time, at 14.43, I said: In the next few weeks, Brisbane's Lytton fuel refinery is scheduled to close for 10 days … I should have said 10 'weeks'. Personal Explanation 52 15:07 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I seek leave to address a matter of personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 In question time I stood to my feet to make a point of order on Minister Watt's misleading answer. He had suggested that I suggested that we, the coalition, were going to scrap the apprenticeship scheme that Labor has now provided. This is completely and utterly fabricated, and I'd like it put on the record that it is a fabrication and a misleading of the Senate and that the Channel 7 program that misled this view has in fact corrected the record. Therefore, I ask that the minister correct the record on this. MOTIONS 52 MOTIONS Fuel 52 15:08 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion relating to fuel security, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator McDONALD 123072 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to fuel security. This morning, Canadian prime minister Carney said: A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. The war on Iran and restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz have already resulted in average petrol price increases of 10 per cent. Parts of the Northern Territory are already paying $4 a litre for fuel, and north Australian farmers and miners are having fuel orders rationed to them. I've heard the scoffing from the government, from those opposite—a complete reluctance to address the reality that is facing people right across Australia, particularly northern Australia: people who are farming, who are mining, who are just trying to get their kids to school. It is not good enough. If Australians are telling you there is a problem, this idea of simply telling Australians there is nothing to worry about is not good enough, and Australians deserve better. Australia is a global energy superpower, yet we can barely guarantee a month of fuel for our own people. We are currently importing up to 90 per cent of our petrol and diesel through some of the most volatile shipping checkpoints on Earth. Labor's response is to lecture Australians about buying more electric cars. Activist-driven ideology won't keep food on the shelves. It won't keep planes in the air. You cannot run a wheat harvester, a muster, a road train or a regional hospital on batteries, and we certainly can't run them with fuel being rationed into these regions already. Labor needs to stop its virtue signalling, it needs to stop telling Australians that there's no problem and it needs to start protecting Australians' interests, as a matter of urgency. All we heard today was the government patting Australians on the head, disregarding their queuing for fuel. You cannot buy a jerry can in Townsville. They're calling farmers and graziers 'hysterical'. Really? Is that the response? What a failure of the government—telling Australians there is nothing to worry about, when their lived experience is happening right now. Fuel is being rationed to people who grow food, who mine minerals, and families are queueing. We know what the impact of this will be at fuel bowsers and at supermarket checkouts. But what will be the result of Brent crude already surging to around $80 a barrel? Barclay's is suggesting that a prolonged conflict or a continued blockade in the Strait of Hormuz will push prices towards $100 to $120 a barrel. And we know that every US$1 increase in the price per barrel will translate to approximately 1c at Australian fuel pumps and around a 0.1 percent to 0.2 per cent increase in headline inflation. This is already a home-grown problem in Australia. Inflation in Australia is already higher than in the rest of the developed world. We have higher costs of living, thanks to government inaction and outrageous spending. Now we're seeing a lack of action on the most important thing that affects all Australians: the availability and affordability of fuel absolutely must be addressed by the government. Today I have sought to suspend standing orders to debate the urgency of a strategy and a plan for fuel security in this country—right now—and the government has denied me that opportunity. This flies in the face of what every Australian grazier has just been told—to wait for fuel—and the fact that miners now have to plan how they're going to manage their transport requirements. And it will affect the cost of food on supermarket shelves. This is shocking. Where is the government on this? Patting Australians on the head and telling them there is not a problem is not good government. (Time expired) 15:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I will make a few comments in relation to Senator McDonald's suspension motion. I will probably take the same broad-ranging approach that she did, so I would ask for the same latitude on indulgence. How wonderful it was to have the Prime Minister of Canada here today and see the welcome that he was given here in the parliament by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition's comments were welcome. It was good to see him talking about somebody at Oxford or Cambridge—or wherever it was—who he actually did meet. We can trust that we can verify this because there is independent verification of it this time. In relation to Senator McDonald's substantial resolution and the One Nation and National Party— Senator AYRES 16913 Well, we let it go on. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Minister, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, on a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance, the minister has gone nowhere close to debating the motion on suspension before the chair. As has been noted by the chamber this entire week, whenever non-Labor senators have stood up to debate suspension motions, they have been pulled up by shop stewards one and all on our relevancy to the topic. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKenzie, I will bring the minister back to the matter at hand on the point of order. Senator AYRES 16913 I did indicate at the beginning that we did not seek to constrain Senator McDonald's contribution because I expect this debate will take its normal course. We took that approach. I expect the chamber to take the same approach. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, this is a debating point now. Senator AYRES 16913 No, I am just indicating what we did. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, resume your seat. I'm happy to rule, but, Senator Cash, I'll give you the call. Senator Cash I0M On the point of order, let us be clear. Your intention is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The Albanese government side did not raise any points of order in relation to Senator McDonald, which means you condoned what she was saying. We are raising points of order in relation to what you are doing, because you are not, as you always point out to us, directly addressing the suspension. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I will remind the minister that we need to direct the matter before the chair. I am happy to rule now. I don't think we need anymore contributions on this. Thank you for your help. I'll bring the minister back to the matter at hand, which is the question of the suspension of standing orders. Senator AYRES 16913 One good turn deserves another, I suppose. This suspension is not warranted. This government has taken more action in relation to fuel security than any government in a generation. This suspension is not warranted because this government has acted in a practical way. There is, I reported, 1½ billion litres of petrol and three billion litres of diesel for the first time because we've implemented minimum stockholding obligations. There is, of course, as today's visit indicated and also the conflict in the Middle East underscores, the rationale for the government's broader Future Made Australia, our broader critical minerals approach, our broader approach to making sure that we have fuel reserves, not in Texas as Mr Taylor had sort of delivered under the previous government—the El Paso approach—but in Australia, with Australian fuel reserves in Australia. There is no suspension warranted here because what is really going on is the extreme-right-wing One Nation Party-National Party-Liberal Party approach to this, which is to deceive Australians about what is really going on here. They were silent as church mice while Mr Taylor was the minister for energy. If there was any urgency about this, they would have been up and about then. But there has been deadly silence from the Liberal's best friends, the One Nation Party—absolute silence. They have been abjectly silent over the course of that period and suddenly they have discovered fuel security. After four out of the six refineries closed, they act now as if Australia has reserves of crude oil that would make a difference! Do you know what is making a difference for ordinary households? It's being able to access electric vehicles. They drive past petrol stations, and see the signs on the petrol stations. That is a fuel security measure right there, for Australia and Australians. It takes the pressure off petrol and diesel. And those families themselves get to access the benefits of that. This suspension is not warranted, because behind it sits a nasty, mean-spirited, disruptive, dishonest campaign— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 He doesn't have to be our friend, he doesn't have to like us, but he shouldn't be reflecting so adversely on the senators. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, I think it would help the chamber if you directed your comments through the chair rather than directly across the chamber at individuals. However, I don't think there was a matter that needed withdrawing. Minister, you have the call. Senator AYRES 16913 Of course, Mr Taylor's leadership of this portfolio is not the most embarrassing thing about Mr Taylor; I accept that that's true. Out of all the failures in his record and out of all of the reasons why Australians should be sceptical and scared of Mr Taylor's leadership of the Liberal Party, his failure on energy security, his failure on fuel security, is not the greatest reason but it's a pretty good reason to give this bloke a big miss. 15:21 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Standing orders should be suspended for this matter, because Australians are very worried right now about our fuel security. I credit Senator McDonald for bringing this issue forward, because it gives us the opportunity here to explain to the Australian people what is being done to help them. It is a little disappointing to me that the government won't take this opportunity to do that. If they were taking action and if they were able to provide reassurance to the Australian people, you'd think they'd welcome this motion so that they could explain in detail to the Australian people exactly what they are doing. But as we've seen in question time and just now, we have a minister here in this chamber, with some responsibility on this issue, who continues to deflect from the real issues and to just throw the most hysterical rants about the other side of politics, and all these conspiracy theories, and right-wing actors—who are the ones, apparently, causing the anxiety in the Australian public. No. The reason the Australian people are anxious about their energy and fuel security is that this government has no credibility as to their statements about energy and climate policy. This government said that they'd cut electricity bills by $275 for Australians. They didn't do it. This government said that they would lower gas prices, when they hauled us all here before Christmas to impose the most onerous regulatory regime we've ever seen in this country. That didn't happen. And so, because this government hasn't been able to abide by its own promises, which it has made, the Australian people are understandably a little sceptical now about any statement the government makes. It would be better if the government could simply take a calm and reassuring approach to this issue, instead of resorting to hysteria as the minister has done today and through this week in the Senate. In the Middle East conflict about 20 years ago, there was a character that popped up, that many of us remember, who became named 'Baghdad Bob', who would do these press conferences and say, 'Everything's fine in Baghdad; everything's under control,' and meanwhile, US tanks were rolling past behind him. Well, now we don't have Baghdad Bob; this time we have Ayatollah Ayres! Ayatollah Ayres is in here saying, 'Everything is fine! Don't worry! There's no problem! Petrol prices might be too high— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan— Senator CANAVAN 245212 Oh, he's a bit sensitive! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, I was going to rule. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, please refer to people by their correct titles. And I would remind you that we do need to be relevant to the matter, which is the suspension of standing orders. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Fair cop. Well, we need to be relevant here, because I would like the minister to just tone it down. We just have this opportunity to support this motion. The issue that doesn't seem to come up or is not being explained here by the government at all is exactly what these stockpiles are and exactly what our requirements are. Our requirements are actually not to hold a minimum amount of supply needs. The international agreement we have signed is to have a minimum amount of net imports. The reason we are more vulnerable today than we were 20 or 30 years ago is that our net imports have surged as our production of oil has dropped. At the start of this century, 25 years ago, we produced enough raw petroleum for 96 per cent of our needs. That is now below 50 per cent, because the Bass Strait has dried up. That's why we are more vulnerable. It's not the refineries that the Labor Party continues to distract about. It happened a few years ago. It's not these arbitrary amounts of fuel we have in a particular barrel in a particular location. The reason we are more vulnerable is that we are producing less oil, and the reason we are producing less oil is that we have put up massive barriers to the development of oil and gas in this country. We have one state, Victoria, that has a ban on fracking across its whole state. They have some of the most prospective oil resources in that state because the Bass Strait, where we used to get it from, extends under the land area of Victoria as well. We know there are liquid fuels in the area, but because they ban fracking, they are untouchable. They are not going to be commercial without fracking. We've banned fracking across the whole area of the Canning Basin in north-western Australia, which is another long-term prospective oil resource for this country. It's not hard to work out that, if we don't drill for oil and gas, we will become vulnerable to the Strait of Hormuz and the conflicts that happen around the world. Look at what the US has done. The US, under different administrations, has taken a different approach. They have drilled; they have fracked. They are now the world's biggest and largest oil producer in the world. Under the Biden administration, the United States produced more oil in one year than any country ever has in history. Meanwhile, we lock up our country on some futile naive mission to change the temperature of the globe, and we make all Australians angry, vulnerable, frustrated and anxious that they now have to pay more than $2 a litre at the pump. 15:27 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Here we have the three war parties falling over themselves to back in and support this illegal war, and now they've got the audacity to complain about the obvious impacts of that war. Pick a side; you can't have it both ways. We've heard today that our nation has let US planes refuel here. So much for 'no resourcing or any support for this war'—they are fuelling here on our shores. We're letting US bases be used on our shores, and the Foreign minister wouldn't answer any questions about whether any of our personnel were on the military vessels that then bombed other vessels in the Indian Ocean. It is a black box here, with the three war parties falling over themselves to back in this illegal conflict, and now they are belatedly boosting for the fossil fuel corporations who will profiteer off ordinary people's pain as this conflict progresses. Senator Canavan belled the cat there, because this motion is a stalking horse for the conservatives to say they want more coal, oil and gas ripped out of the ground. They've never met the climate crisis, and they are not about to start listening to science now. The talk of removing the fracking bans on good-quality farmland was very telling from a party that used to represent farmers and now just takes donations from Santos. Rather than falling over themselves to open up more fossil fuels in a climate crisis to make more money for these greedy companies that don't pay their fair share of tax, they should instead stop giving these massive polluting companies the freebies that they get every year from the taxpayer—the $8-odd billion in fuel tax credits. Apparently, we're in a government spending crisis. There's a tip for you—get rid of those fuel tax credits for those big polluting companies that already don't pay their fair share of tax, that get much of this gas royalty-free, that have their hands out for further subsidies and are now profiteering from an illegal war. We should be imposing a 25 per cent gas tax on them, to boot, and turning off the tap of that public money. You want to talk about fuel security? Why don't we electrify our transport as much as possible? That is the solution for fuel security. It will help us address the climate crisis and it will help us make sure our needs are met. The needs that these folk want to meet are the needs of the rich gas companies that don't pay tax, that have their hands out for the taxpayer and that are now profiteering off an illegal war. Fossil fuel shares have surged since this war began five days ago. The Woodside share price is up by almost 10 per cent. You've got Santos' share price—you might have heard me mention it's a common donor to the National Party. Santos' share price is up by 7.8 per cent. That's an almost $6 billion increase in market capital for Woodside. They are making bank off an illegal war, and this is on top of the fact that they get public money in a cost-of-living crisis. When ordinary people are finding it hard to pay their way, to fill up the groceries, to pay the rent and to fill up the car, the wealthy and tax-dodging gas corporations who are polluting like there's no tomorrow are getting freebies out of the taxpayer, and gas corporations will continue to profiteer off this war, just like they did off the back of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Today, we saw QatarEnergy declare a force majeure in order to back out of gas supply contracts. We say that gas corporations should not be rewarded for this greed and that we've got to have some action in the next budget to turn off the tap of taxpayer support to polluting companies. End those fuel tax credits and those PRRT loopholes which make a mockery of our resources, giving them away for free to these polluting profiteering companies. Civilians are being killed, and people are suffering; meanwhile, greedy gas corporations are using Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war to simply line their pockets. I've already mentioned that Woodside has made almost $6 billion since the first bomb dropped. While the rest of us are mourning the death of schoolchildren, those big fossil fuel companies are laughing all the way to the bank. And this mob has the audacity to both back the war and yet, at the same time, want to boost for further profits for the same polluting companies that already get billions of dollars in hand-outs, don't pay their fair share of tax and are making bank off an illegal war. For shame! 15:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This matter is urgent for three reasons. Firstly, the truth is not coming out. We want it out. It has to come out immediately before more people die. Secondly, fuel security—the people are getting ripped off at the bowser because of fuel volatility in prices and supply. I want to correct the record here, and I also want to point out, yet again, how urgent this is. This is from Senator Hanson, Leader of One Nation, from a Hansard from 2021: I rise to speak on the Fuel Security Bill 2021. When I came into the Senate in 2016 I raised the importance of fuel security for all Australians. For a decade, she has been on about it, and I have been hearing her for that full decade and before. She goes on to say: This and previous governments have continually failed to meet the internationally mandated 90 days stockpile of fuel for the people of this nation. That means this government has put at risk— that was the Morrison government, but you're doing the same now— the fuel security of our daily transport needs— daily transport needs of the people watching this at home— our defence, our aviation industry, our mining and our commuter needs. Without this internationally mandated 90-day stockpile of fuel, Australia risks coming to a grinding halt. My concerns were echoed by Senator Jim Molan when he entered the parliament in … 2017. Not only has she done that, but she's advocated for a pipeline across the country to bring some of the world's largest gas reserves to the east coast cities of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney and get fuel from gas to liquid fuel, diesel and petrol, conversion. And what have you done? Nothing What Senator Ayres did, through you, Chair, on Monday, when I asked this question and started this talk about fuel security—which we must discuss—is try to conflate it by saying he had 115 per cent, 120 per cent, 150 per cent. Forget the arithmetic; he was misleading, because, when we went and did our research, we found out he had 115 per cent of 24 days, which is about 26 days. We realised he was misleading the people of Australia and misleading the representatives in this chamber, because he was saying we had 115 per cent of reserves when we had less than 30 per cent of reserves, according to the International Energy Agency. Then, when he was caught out by my question on Monday, what did he do? He focused entirely on Angus Taylor, who has nothing to do with this at the moment. This is what the government try to do. They try to deflect, denigrate and mislead, and they try to hide it. That's why we need this, if I follow Senator McKenzie's call—I'll read clause (b). It calls on the government to take 'urgent action to avoid a fuel crisis that will add to Australia's already existing, home-grown inflation pressures'. Fuel stocks are low. We are not arguing they are low under Mr Taylor as the energy minister. That's for another day. We want to sort the problem out now. We need truth, we need security, and we need absolute facts out in the open. That's why we need this inquiry. We can't get the answer by asking the minister, Chris Bowen, or Senator Wong. Volatility of fuel prices is cut by having reserves at 90 days. That is a fact. The people of Australia will pay through the neck. The other thing is security. The whole country stops when we run out of diesel—farms, mines, transport. Every single thing in this country relies upon transport indirectly or directly, and, when the trucks stop, Australia stops. You should know that from listening to Glenn Sterle, a truckie himself. This is about security. It's also about long-term security, getting a pipeline across the country, as Senator Hanson has requested and suggested for decades now, to convert our gas fuels into liquid fuels, diesel and petrol in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. We also note that the United States has dropped net zero and the Paris agreement and is now producing more hydrocarbon fuels. Why? Because they are essential for human life as we know it. 15:37 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to support Senator McDonald's suspension of standing order and her motion on fuel security. The fact is that the war in the Middle East will see a rise in fuel prices across our country. The failure of the government to deal with what is happening at petrol browsers right now, this week, with fuel that is already onshore, is unconscionable. The fact is that this will be a layered and cumulative impact of the home-grown inflation that is right at the feet of Treasurer Jim Chalmers. It means Australians are struggling with fuel increases, energy bill increases and insurance bill increases. The cost of housing has gone through the roof because of inflation that this government has caused. And, on the top of that, you are now going to have inflationary pressures as a result of fuel price increases. What is the Labor Party doing? Nothing. The way to get these cost-of-living pressures down is to cut government spending. We're now at the highest proportion of government spending across our economy in 40 years. That's what's driving up inflation, that's what's driving up interest rates, and that's what's driving up Australia's cost-of-living pressures. You've got the budget. Use it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator McDonald be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. Whitten, T. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 6 PAIRS Cadell, R. P. Gallagher, K. R. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Steele-John, J. A. Colbeck, R. M. McCarthy, M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Lines, S. Smith, D. A. Watt, M. P.

Question negatived.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 57 15:45 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to coalition senators' questions. Inadequate is how I would describe the Labor government's response to question 2, about the Administrative Review Tribunal overturning a decision on visa cancellation. The first job of any government is to keep its people safe, to protect its people and, mostly, its most vulnerable people. It should not be after harm; it should be to prevent harm. A preventive approach is what's necessary. I refer to the article in the Australian by Paul Garvey and its headline: Man convicted of touching girl wins right to stay in Australia. This article was about a Lebanese man who inappropriately touched a 15-year-old girl less than three weeks after arriving in Australia on a tourist visa. He's now won the right to remain in the country. The article states: The Administrative Review Tribunal last week overturned the Albanese government's decision to cancel the partner visa held by 32-year-old Lucien Daher after taking into account the interests of his wife and three young children. A reading of the report suggests the courageous girl, a 15-year-old girl, made it clear the advances by him were unwelcome, let alone unlawful. The reporting says that the tribunal took into account the protection and expectations of the Australian community and the upholding of the cancellation of his visa but gave weight to the strength of his ties to Australia and the best interests of his three children. The ART ruled that it was a one-off: The applicant has not reoffended and has matured by reason of his marriage and children. The applicant's life circumstances reflect stability, which provides a robust protective influence against recidivism and deterioration in the applicant's mental health. I say, what about the protection of the victim-survivor? What about her life circumstances after this experience? What about stability for her? What about her, as a child, and what about her family? Victims-survivors should always be at the forefront. That shouldn't be negotiable, and we shouldn't have to think about that at all. This is just another example of the Labor government's incompetence. Australians saw that in the government's ability to prepare for and respond to the NZYQ cohort, and it's clear they have not learnt their lesson to do everything possible to protect Australians. When will this government stop falling asleep at the wheel when it comes to the security of Australians? Enough is enough. Australians expect their government to put the community safety ahead of everything else, yet we see time and time again examples where visa holders convicted of serious offences against children are allowed to remain in Australia. How is that even a thing? What about the child victim-survivor—a 15-year-old girl? Labor turned this into something that appeared to be an attack on the coalition. The only entity that should be under attack here is the government. And attacking means making sure something is being done about it now. The priority must always be about protecting children and victims, not finding reasons to allow offenders to stay. There have been multiple controversial tribunal decisions overturning visa cancellations involving serious offenders in recent years, and it begs the question of what the government is actually doing. What are you doing to protect Australians not after the fact but before the fact? I look forward to hearing a minister come back into this chamber with an explanation not just of what's happened here but of what you will do about it. That's what's important to the Australian community—their safety, national safety and putting the community first. (Time expired) 15:51 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I take questions that were raised by Senator Bragg but also the questions regarding the economy. What Senator Bragg failed to mention in his comments about the economy and his comments regarding the Reserve Bank is a very important report that was on 2 March 2026, this year. Shane Wright, in the Sydney Morning Herald, exposed what the consequences were for Tim Wilson to turn around and prioritise inflation rather than inflation and employment. The Reserve Bank said in a report by Sarah Hunter, the chief economist from the bank—I'm using my words—that, on the basis of battling inflation the way that Shadow Minister Wilson was suggesting, there would be over 200,000 more people that would be out of work and mortgage holders would be hit with much higher repayments as it more aggressively hiked up interest rates. Here we've got the Reserve Bank calling out the shadow Treasurer for a proposition that would have had 200,000 more people lose their jobs and interest rates actually be higher. That's the recipe that those opposite have. That's the strategy they have to deal with the cost of living: throw people out on the scrap heap and have no effect except a negative effect by driving interest rates up. When you start looking at the sorts of things that the opposition have with regard to cost of living and the sorts of issues that they raise on cost of living, you see not only that they want more people sacked, not only that they want more mums and dads without jobs, not only that they want to have ghettos across our economy, but the consequences of what they want on a whole series of other fronts. When it comes to the cost of living, you have to look at some of the comments. I'll use what the Leader of the Opposition, Angus Taylor, told David Speers and the ABC. He said—and we'll all remember this one: The best indicator of future performance is past performance. Well, as a backbencher, Angus Taylor, the opposition leader, advocated for raising the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent while championing a GP tax and cuts to public health funding. As energy minister, he ran the energy grid into the ground; 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing, and he did little or nothing to replace them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Sheldon, resume your seat. Senator Canavan on a point of order? Senator Canavan 245212 This is a time to take note of questions that were asked in the chamber today. It is hard for me to understand how this could be relevant when he's talking about the record of someone in the other place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, there is generally wide latitude given in these debates. However, I will bring Senator Sheldon back to the questions asked by coalition senators, which is the matter before the chamber. Senator SHELDON 168275 They don't want to hear about cost-of-living issues, but I respect your position, Deputy President. Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson's idea of economic management plan is to repeatedly call for higher interest rates. In fact, in 2018, in parliament, he said: … we need to create the policy settings to progressively increase interest rates. For those out there who want to read it, it's in Hansard, 27 February 2018. Again, in 2020, the same shadow Treasurer turned around and said: Nobody wins from low interest rates. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, on a point of order? Senator Canavan 245212 I don't want to repeat myself, but I am concerned that my colleague is almost flouting your ruling. You did ask him to come back to the question, and he moved on from one member of the other place to another member of the other place. I'm not sure he's come back to the question due to your ruling earlier. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Sheldon, again, I remind you that, whilst wide latitude is given, it does need to be related to the matter before the Senate, which is the questions asked by coalition senators of members of the government. Senator SHELDON 168275 Thank you, Deputy President, I'll follow that. I know those opposite don't want to hear. I'll use unnamed sources when talking about the economy because what we have had from those opposite and from their parties constantly turns around. There have been questions asked about interest rates, and this is what has actually been said by those opposite. These are the positions of those across the way about economic management, and this is how they look after the interests of all Australians. They are always undermining opportunities to make sure that the cost of living is properly dealt with for Australians. Let's not forget the previous shadow finance minister, the now deputy opposition leader, Jane Hume, calling out our tax cuts for millions of Australians as a 'travesty', or when she said that Labor investing in essential services was 'utter nonsense'. Those are the statements by those opposite about economic management and how to manage the cost of living. No wonder they want to shut it down! No wonder they don't want to have these conversations in this place. Apparently they also say that we shouldn't be investing in essential services. (Time expired) 15:57 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland What we just heard there was the government's complete inability to defend its own record. They were given ample time to defend the economic situation of this country, what they've done and what their plans are to fix things, but, instead, almost all of that time was taken up by dredged-up quotes from members of the House of Reps—at least, at the end, there were quotes from someone from this chamber taken from years ago. I don't think the Australian people right now want to hear from their government about what other people said years ago about different issues. What they want to know is they have a government that understands that there is a major problem with the economic circumstances of this country and that they have a plan to fix that. Right now, Australia has the highest inflation rate in the whole developed world, and we just heard before from Senator Sheldon who said that that's fine. His approach is to sit there in the burning room with a cup of coffee saying, 'Everything is fine.' It's the highest inflation rate in the developed world. How can the Australian people believe that they have a government that is going to fix this dire circumstance if they cannot even admit that there's a problem? The first thing you have to do to fix something in your life is admit that you have problem. You're watching too much TV or eating too much junk food. If you can't admit that you've got a problem, you're not going to fix it. This government cannot bring itself to admit that its addiction to massive increases in government spending is causing problems. It is fuelling inflation. It has left Australia facing the highest inflation rate in the developed world. It means the increase in grocery prices, fuel prices and energy bills are higher here than anywhere else in the developed world. Instead of admitting that problem, we saw in question time that the government continues to gaslight Australians and say, 'Everything is fine.' Senator Bragg rightly pointed out that the latest economic data released this week, the so-called national accounts, which is sort of like a tape measure across the whole Australian economy about how things are going, showed that public sector demand—that is, the spending of the government—is growing at a rate double that of private sector demand, which is the spending of everyone else—that is, the private sector. That's a clear fact. In these figures this week, the facts are that public sector demand went up by 0.9 per cent, year on year, and private sector demand by 0.4 per cent. So it was double the growth in private sector demand. Instead of accepting that that might be just a bit of a problem in a high-inflationary environment, the finance minister said, 'No, but the contribution to growth is about the same.' The reason for that is that the public sector is much smaller than the private sector. So even though it has a faster growth rate, its contribution to the overall economy is necessarily going to be less; it's always almost certainly going to be less, unless you're in a remarkable period like COVID. That defence by the government is complete gaslighting of the Australian people. It makes no economic sense to use that measure when judging whether this massive growth in government spending is actually contributing to a problem. But we don't need to go through the weeds of the national accounts to see that there is an issue here. We can look at very clear numbers about the state of government spending in this country. The last budget before any COVID measures were put in place was for 2018-19, and I've got the figures here. The federal government, on the people's behalf, spent $478 billion that year. In this financial year that we're in now, with the latest update, the figures went up again in December. This financial year your government, on your behalf, is spending $786 billion. That is an extra $308 billion compared with pre-COVID levels of spending. It's a big number. What does that mean? There are about 10 million households in Australia. I'm using some rough numbers here, but it's about 10 million households. And $300 billion across 10 million households is an extra $30,000 per household that the Commonwealth government is spending on your behalf. This is every year, going on our nation's credit card, because we're borrowing all this. Do you put $30,000 on your credit card every year? Do you think that would be a wise decision? That is what your government has been doing since COVID. We ended JobKeeper. This government inherited a situation where we'd spent a lot of monty during COVID. We ended those programs, and the government replaced it with more government spending, which has fuelled inflation and led to this country having the highest increase in prices of anywhere in the developed world. If we want to lower that, if we want to give Australians relief, we need to cut this obsession with excessive government spending. 16:02 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to take note of answers to questions from Senators Bragg and Senator McKenzie that went to the issue of public spending in our economy. And I welcome the opportunity to do this, for two reasons, firstly because it presents an opportunity for a bit of context and a bit of clarity. The national accounts show that growth in our economy is now much stronger and broader, with a pace of annual growth in private demand picking up in 2025. That's what the national accounts showed us. Secondly, this presents an opportunity to reflect on the components that make up public spending and the values that underpin them. As in all matters of public policy and public expenditure, what we're talking about here is choices: values based choices about what you choose to fund and what you choose to invest in—things like the defence of our nation. Investment that underpins defence spending is, at its heart, a matter of our values regarding our own sovereignty. There are bad investments in my home state of South Australia. So when you're picking apart the quantum of public spending, you're picking apart questions like whether we invest in the defence of our nation and whether we invest in things like AUKUS. But it's not just defence, and there's a question here for those opposite, who seek to deride and diminish public spending and investment in our economy. Which is it that you would choose to cut, if not spending the same? Would you cut the age pension? Would you abolish our cheaper childcare measure? Is it the 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators that our government has invested in? Would you see us not invest to make medicines cheaper, including a huge range of medicines supporting women's health issues? These are medicines that support women who are experiencing endometriosis, as well as contraceptive pills and menopause therapy treatments, which haven't been added to the PBS for decades. Would you cut those from public spending? Would you cut our record investment in public hospitals? Would you cut the other new medicines that we've put on the PBS, including life-saving treatments, which are now accessible and affordable to the Australians who need them? Would you cut our expansion of free GP visits by cutting our investment in urgent care clinics across Australia? Would you cut the work we did to triple the bulk-billing investment? Would you remove paid parental leave? Would you remove super on paid parental leave? Would you oppose our investments in free TAFE? Would you unwind our investments in university reform? Would you unwind those free prac placements for nursing, teaching and social work students, which we know are keeping our best and brightest in the degrees that we need them in as the care economy grows as a part of our economy overall? Do you want to see us wind back our cuts to student debt, which are making a really significant difference to the cost of living of South Australians and indeed Australians across the country? Is it our affordable housing programs that you would like to see removed from public spending in Australia? Investment in aged care, perhaps—the 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers? That's something you may well oppose too, or maybe it's our investments in women's safety, including the Leaving Violence Program for victims-survivors of domestic violence. If you're opposed to public spending then I suppose it's the NDIS and our investment in investment disability support pensions, or maybe it's veterans' compensation and rehabilitation claims. It might even be school funding, which the Liberals want to unwind—indeed, fairly funding public schools for the first time. Maybe, as I said, it’s the additional investments in defence which you don't want to see the federal government making, or the proper resourcing we've put into Home Affairs and the Australian Border Force, because you don't want to see our borders secure and you don't want to see Australians kept safe. Perhaps it's our investment in biosecurity which you don't want the federal government to be making. Maybe it's the natural disaster relief and recovery budget that we have or our work to improve mobile and broadband connections across rural and regional Australia. Ultimately, when government spends, government makes a values choice and a moral choice about what we invest in and what we prioritise, and our government is investing in defence. It is supporting aged care. It is funding an increase in wages for some of our lowest paid workers in feminised industries, and I stand by those choices. Not only have you been misleading about the economic reality facing our country; you also have to answer the questions about what you would fund and what you would spend. Public spending is a values decision. I know what our values are. I know what we're funding, and I'm proud of it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I remind senators in the chamber that interjections are disorderly. 16:07 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make my contribution on the motion moved by Senator Liddle to take note of answers given by government ministers to questions from the opposition today. As we have heard through question time and through this debate, what this government does is not to address the issues that are being placed before it through question time. They just continue to deflect, talk about somebody else or blame somebody else. They never talk about the policy that is being considered by the question. They don't have the courage to stand up and talk about their own policies or what they're doing to deal with the issues that are before the chamber at the time. They have a number of reflexes. Firstly, they go personal, then they blame somebody else, and then they talk about something completely different. They don't have the courage to talk about the policies or the issues that are before them. We saw that a number of times today during question time. We asked a serious question about the safety of Australians and the management of the borders, and all we get from the government is a whole series of rhetoric about what somebody else did, not about the safety of a young girl and how she had been treated or how she felt because of the way the government is managing our borders. It becomes about somebody else. It becomes about somebody who was in a portfolio five, six or seven years ago. This government will never take responsibility for what it's doing in the way that it's managing these important issues. Australians deserve to feel safe in this country. They deserve to understand that this government is looking after those matters that are important to them, particularly during these uncertain times. The government talks about social harmony. And yet the first thing that they do when they stand to talk about an issue in this chamber is to yell personal abuse across the chamber. Now, how does that set an example to the rest of the Australian community about how we should behave, how social harmony is important in this place? When a question comes to the minister about an important medical treatment in this country, the first instinct of the minister is to go personal against the shadow. That's the first instinct. It's not to go to what is a really important issue about how young children get access to a very important treatment here in this country—a treatment that has bipartisan support, I might say, and was jointly proposed by both sides of politics nine years ago. This government has been in government now for nearly four years. They have some responsibility to take, and the Australian people deserve to hear the government addressing the issues that are of concern to them. The government won't talk about their promises. They won't talk about the commitments that they made to the Australian people. They just want to talk about somebody else or yell personal abuse across the chamber. Let's think about those promises. They promised them cheaper housing. That's what this government promised the Australian people at the 2022 election—cheaper housing. How is that going? Does anyone in this country think they're getting cheaper housing? They promised them higher real wages. Well, the OECD says, according to the latest figures, Australia has experienced the largest collapse in living standards among all developed countries. They promised higher real wages. Higher real wages are, in fact, going backwards under this government and its policies. They promised a lower cost of living. That's not working out so well either. And, of course, they also promised to reduce our power bills by $275 by 2025, and there is no sign of that. In fact, I don't think I've heard a government member utter the words 'two hundred and seventy-five dollars' since 2022. They said it 97 times before the election—not a word of it since. It's about time this government started being honest with the Australian people and addressing the things that are genuinely of concern to them. Question agreed to. Defence 62 16:12 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of Senator Wong's response to Senator Shoebridge's question today. The war that's being perpetrated on Iran as we speak by the rogue states of the United States and Israel is profoundly and deeply distressing—just to think of the thousands of innocent people, the men, women and children, who are suffering, who've been injured or who've been killed, and no doubt the tens of thousands more, at least, to come as the besuited, genocidal war criminals Trump and Netanyahu promote and conduct an obviously and blatantly illegal war. It's not just distressing; the illegality is clear. It is clear. The test established by international law was never met, and there has never been such an abject failure to meet the test required by international law. We know that how we got here was that the world sat by and watched while Israel conducted a genocide in Gaza, while tens of thousands of people were mass murdered by Israel, with the complicity of the United States and Australia. The lesson here is, if you empower bullies, if you empower genocidal fascists, if you empower war criminals, then that will embolden them and they will take the next step, and that's exactly what has happened here. The question needs to be asked: what is Australia's role in this war on Iran? We know that US planes, part of the war machine, flew from Diego Garcia base to Australia just a few days ago, and, when Foreign Minister Wong was asked about that in question time today, she did not or could not rule out that those planes had been used in the conduct of the war against Iran. And Pine Gap is undoubtedly being used in real time to relay intel and to relay comms that are being used in an illegal war against Iran. A ship was sunk yesterday in the Indian Ocean—an Iranian ship, illegally sunk by the United States of America, that had just left from conducting a friendship visit to India,. It was sunk and then the surviving crew were abandoned to drown by the United States—contrary, I might add, to article 18 of the Geneva convention. What is Australia's role in this barbarity? What is Australia's role in this abandonment of the so-called rules based international order? I'll tell you what Australia's role is. We saw it laid bare in question time today by Senator Wong when she made this vague assertion that somehow the ship that was illegally sunk by the US in the Indian Ocean was apparently targeting some unnamed people. Well, I'll tell you what: we remember the lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq. We remember those lies, and I'm calling it out again. This current war is being conducted on the basis of a lie, just as the Iraq war was conducted on the basis of the lie of weapons of mass destruction. Let's turn to Australia's domestic politics. You could have looked at Senator Pauline Hanson's tweet on the day of the invasion. You could have crossed out 'Senator Hanson' and put in 'Prime Minister Albanese', and no-one could have told the difference, because the talking points were identical. The war parties in this place are the Labor Party, the coalition and One Nation. But I'll tell you what: the Greens are here to say the killing has to stop. The Greens are here to say that international law needs to be abided by. We say the lives of Palestinian children and Iranian children actually matter. We say Australia should not be dragged into yet another catastrophic war on the other side of the planet. We say it is time to end the bloodshed now. We say: let's separate ourselves from being vassal states, lickspittles and bootlickers to the United States and Israel. Let's have a genuinely independent foreign policy. Let's end the Scott Morrison brain fart of AUKUS and genuinely act in Australia's best interests, not in the interests of the military-industrial complex. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator, take your seat, please. I will ask you to use, for former prime ministers, their title. You may be very passionate, but you still need to show respect in this chamber. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Home Guarantee Scheme 62 Order for the Production of Documents 62 16:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm very grateful for the opportunity. I just indicate, in relation to this attendance for compliance with OPD 208—which I'm informed was originally 119; thank you—that Minister O'Neil provided documents in response to Senator Bragg's order 119 on 19 December. Some information was redacted as it disclosed cabinet deliberations. That's the way that the Westminster system works, Senator Bragg. I want to be clear here. We as a government have complied with more orders for production of documents in one term than any Australian government in the history of the Commonwealth. That includes an order moved by Senator Bragg, who was requesting a congratulatory letter. I am very happy to provide Senator Bragg with a congratulatory letter on ministerial letterhead. I'm happy to say to him, 'Congratulations, Senator Bragg, for staying on the coalition frontbench over the course of the last period.' Not everybody was afforded that opportunity in that sort of game of snakes and ladders with no ladders, except the ladder of opportunity that Senator Bragg ascends. Senator Bragg 256063 A point of order. I think everyone knows this is a very long bow. I don't think these issues are germane to the— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x There is no point of order. Senator AYRES 16913 What I won't do is move onto Senator Sharma and his extraordinary rise through this process— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Minister, I remind you to put your remarks through the chair, please. Senator AYRES 16913 I won't reflect upon all of the sorts of snakes and ladders, snakes and snakes, games that have gone on over there and the dramatic reversals of fortune that have happened for some and not for others. But I would say that, in Ms O'Neil's portfolio of housing alone, in this term of parliament alone, in response to orders of production of documents, the government has provided 3,995 pages worth of documents. In terms of the number of pages, that is 62 times the number of pages that there were in the Liberal Party review, which was conducted by Sir Nicholas and Pru, who tried to speak truth to power— Senator Bragg 256063 Are they all redacted? How many were redacted? Senator AYRES 16913 It's the number of pages, Senator. Senator Bragg 256063 A point of order. I fail to see how the minister canvassing another political party's internal review has anything to do with the matter before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x There is no point of order. Senator AYRES 16913 I do reflect upon the number of pages that we have provided and the direct relationship to the number of pages that there are in the Liberal Party review that Mr Taylor sought so hard to stop you all seeing. Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order. The minister is obliged to speak in a way that's directly relevant to the matter before the Senate, and I would ask you to draw him back to the matter that is being debated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I don't think I need to remind the minister of the subject before us. Senator AYRES 16913 Indeed, that same review said that the Liberal Party needed to have 'serious reform in housing'. So, fewer orders for production of documents and less secrecy from the Liberal Party machine—we know where you stood on this question. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Minister, I think we have another point of order. Senator McGrath 217241 You are far-sighted, Acting Deputy President. A point of order on relevance. These debates can be wide-ranging, but the minister is nowhere near the topic at hand. I'd ask you to bring him back to the debate, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x It is a wide-ranging debate, as it always is in this place. I will give the call back to the minister and ask him to continue with his contribution. Senator AYRES 16913 Indeed, the first part of learning that you've got a problem is being able to tell yourselves that you've got a problem. Instead of learning the lessons, we see more negativity, more extremism— Senator McGrath 217241 Why don't you just release the documents? Senator AYRES 16913 Indeed, Senator! Why didn't the Liberal Party release the documents? Why didn't they do that? Look, I don't want to spend any more time this afternoon on this question, because we have years in front of us on this review. We'll all learn lessons from it. We will. I'm not sure you will, but we will. We will learn. We'll adapt. We'll moderate our approach and we'll get right into it. This order for the production of documents was complied with in December. It has been complied with. Senator Bragg notes in this motion that he believes, he says, that 'the Prime Minister has previously referred to the conducted modelling in public forums'. He should have said 'fora'. I was criticised for my syntax earlier on. It's probably 'fora'. 'Fewer' instead of 'less'—that's true. And Senator Bragg claims that this makes the minister's PII claim irrelevant. I'll help him out here: it's about contingent liability and not the home price impact model. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I remind senators on the left: with continual interjection, you are then going to get a response for that. 16:25 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I'm happy to have interjections if they're going to aid debate, but I make the point, in taking note of the minister's explanation—if you could call it an explanation— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Are you moving to take note? I'm moving to take note of this explanation, if you can call it an explanation. What it really was was a continuation of the government's obfuscation across the board. It doesn't matter whether it's FOI, answers to questions on notice or orders for production. The government is refusing to provide the information. Frankly, it is offensive to the taxpayers to hear the minister come in here and spend most of his time on the explanation making jokes—which may in some ways be funny—about the Liberal Party's review. It has nothing to do with the matter before the Senate. The reason that we have this ODP before the Senate is that the Prime Minister of Australia has been citing data to support his position—according to the Treasury, he says—that prices would go up by 0.6 per cent as a result of Labor's massive expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme, also known as five per cent deposits. The minister apparently says that compliance is a series of blank pages, but the modelling, of course, is not blank pages. The modelling would be a series of numbers with a series of assumptions and risks, and this modelling was, of course, an afterthought. This policy of five per cent deposits, open to anyone, without any means testing, without any place caps, in a supply constrained environment, was announced during the election campaign in May 2025. It was only in July that the government decided, 'Oh, maybe we should get some modelling to see whether or not this idea is going to force prices to change.' Apparently, the Treasury came back and said it will by 0.6 six per cent over many years. But the problem with that is that the 0.6 per cent was eclipsed with a 3.6 per cent increase in the December quarter alone—the first quarter of the operation of the scheme. So it was wiped out, and the community feels it. If you look at the Cotality data, you can see that entry-level house prices are massively increasing compared to houses that are more valuable. This is a policy which is making life harder for younger people. Ninety-five per cent mortgages are already going to be hard work, but this is pushing the prices up in this supply constrained environment to the point where people can't afford to get a mortgage and will never get a mortgage even with this five per cent scheme. This point of this exercise is to get to the bottom of this. It started in August. The Senate passed a motion asking for the modelling. In September, I wrote to the minister, asking for the answer. We finally got something in December that was mainly a redacted piece of paper. It was four or five pieces of paper, 95 per cent of which was totally redacted or covered up. Of course we have asked for those redactions to be removed, because it is not true—and this is the main point—and it is unreasonable for the minister to argue that the modelling is cabinet-in-confidence. The modelling is produced on a piece of paper by the Treasury. If you don't believe me, go and refer to the Hansard for economics estimates, where you'll see the person from Treasury who actually did the modelling, and he will say: 'Yes, we did the piece of modelling. It was on a few pieces of paper, and we provided them to the government.' That is not a cabinet document. It's not. The idea that, according to Minister Ayres and Minister O'Neil, they've complied with the thing and they're not going to provide any more information because it's cabinet is incorrect. It is not correct. Effectively, if the government think this is the end of the road on this process of trying to get to the bottom of the five per cent modelling, then they are mistaken. We will never give up on using the powers of the Senate to get the documents we are supposed to get. We're not doing it for ourselves; we're doing it because that's our job. Our job is to get to the bottom of things, to expose maladministration and to consider the documents that are given to the executive to make decisions. In this case, the executive had made the wrong decision. The policy is flawed and wrong, and it may have been based on modelling that is completely flawed and should be released. It is not a cabinet document; it must be released. I thank the crossbench for their forbearance and their support, and I indicate that we will continue working on this until we get to the bottom of it, so stay tuned. 16:30 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise also to speak on this attendance motion. I've got to say I really hope people out there in housing-crisis land did not watch the minister's appearance, because I felt like I was in a very sad front bar with a set of worn-out senators after a hard week in the Senate, where he blew off a really significant crisis that is affecting so many millions of Australians. We got that kind of jokey, dismissive, contemptuous response. I must say, as a senator, I am absolutely outraged at that response. It was inappropriate. It's the most significant economic issue in this country, affecting millions of people—young people, their parents, older women who can't find a rental house, who are on the street and who are tipped into homelessness. There has been a 10 per cent increase in homelessness in the four years of this Labor government. Shame on you to come in here, Minister, and be so dismissive and so contemptuous of a very legitimate request. This is a request for modelling on one of the government's central programs in its appalling array of programs which are failing to meet the crisis in front of us and are, in fact, a series of responses, including the five per cent deposit scheme, which are pouring fuel on a housing crisis like we have never seen in this country in the postwar period. It's a crisis that is tipping people into living in tents in the parklands in my city and in every city. There is not a city in this country where someone who is looking for an affordable first home can afford, on average, a house. We see people in every city in our country, as they purchase their first home, entering automatically into housing stress. This is a really serious issue, yet we see this minister come in here and fail to treat it with any kind of seriousness. I am distressed by it. I am disgusted by it, and I think he should be doing better and his government should be doing better. This OPD was passed in the Senate six months ago, and it asked for the total budgetary costs of Labor's expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme. We've pursued this issue in estimates. We get told, 'Chase it in estimates.' We've chased it in estimates over and over again. They are serious questions about an expensive and significant program, and we get these appalling—I'm not allowed to use them as a prop—five blank pages as a response to us in the Senate. It is disgraceful. It is treating us with contempt. More importantly than treating us with contempt, as senators elected to this place, it's treating people out there with contempt—people out there who are trying to raise a deposit, people who are trying to get into housing. They are failing to give us the information we need to look seriously at a significant program. Even though the government would like to think this OPD is completely complied with, it's the opinion of the Senate that it's not complied with. It's clearly not. It's a blank response. That is contemptuous. The Senate has rejected the government's public interest immunity claim, and we need the full costings. Labor's five per cent deposit scheme is turbocharging prices at the very entry-level point in the housing market where young people are trying to get in. Almost every economist in the country, including the economists in Treasury, said it would push prices up, and—hey presto!—it has, and they're up much more than the Treasury modelling predicted. We need to look at that modelling and understand it, and it is a completely reasonable request to seek it out. As I said, there are no affordable houses for first home buyers in any city in our country, and the prices of houses at that lower entry level of the market have grown 68 per cent since 2020. That is an impossible circumstance for people trying to get into housing. Last year alone the price of entry-level homes grew at a rate of 12.3 per cent, and in recent months, since the five per cent deposit came into being, they have accelerated at a rapid rate. It was predicted by economists and recognised by Treasury, and all we say is: 'Show us the modelling. Let us understand what is happening. Show us the budget that is implied here.' What we see here is a failure by Labor to be straightforward with the Senate about the information it received to analyse a significant program—in a housing crisis, a crisis that is affecting so many people. That response was a disgrace. The Senate deserves better, the minister needs to do better, and Labor has got to do better for Australians. 16:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I associate myself with Senator Barbara Pocock's remarks in this regard and also with Senator Andrew Bragg's remarks. This is simply not good enough. Earlier in the week the Prime Minister used the forum of federal parliament to table the review into the Liberal Party's performance at last election. The Australian people aren't interested in the internal machinations of the opposition. They're interested in the government actually addressing the matters of concern to the Australian people, and, as Senator Pocock and Senator Bragg said, one of the No. 1 issues is access to affordable housing. The minister came into this place, and in terms of his explanation as to why, in response to an order for the production of documents from the Senate, we were given five or six redacted pages—and, for those who don't know what the practice is, it's just pages covered in black ink. This Senate legitimately asked for the modelling of the home deposit guarantee program because the Senate was concerned, as nearly every reputable economist in the country was concerned, that it would lead to an increase in the cost of housing for first entrants into the housing market, and that's what we've now seen, as Senator Bragg said. The latest figures for the first quarter in which the program was in operation show that the cost of housing went up 3.6 per cent for first home buyers. So we want to see the modelling from Treasury that was provided to the government to form the basis of the decision to implement this scheme, and the government is refusing to provide it to us. It's not good enough. They're not just refusing to provide it to us; they're refusing to provide it to the Australian people. I'm genuinely and desperately concerned for those first home buyers who have entered into the market with the burden of a debt I could not have imagined undertaking when I was buying my first property, and I'm also concerned with respect to future first home buyers, those who are seeking to enter into the market with this escalation in housing prices. The Senate—the house of review, the house of scrutiny, one of the great checks on executive power in Australia's political system—is seeking the information to do its job, and the Senate is being treated with absolute contempt by this government. The second point I want to make in this regard—and I've referred to this report from the Centre for Public Integrity on numerous occasions, so this isn't a one-off—is about the contempt for orders for the production of documents, which are issued by the Senate; the failure to answer legitimate questions in the Senate estimates; and the failure to respond in a timely fashion to FOI requests. This is part of a pattern of behaviour. I want to quote from the Centre for Public Integrity's report. The Centre for Public Integrity was established by outstanding Australians. It's non-political, non-partisan; it simply wants to see better government in this country. This is what they say about the performance of the Albanese Labor government: In July 2025, the Centre for Public Integrity released two reports assessing the Government's record on transparency. In respect of freedom of information … They warned of 'a worrying increase in FOI application refusals.' They also say: Instead of fixing the problem, the Government doubled down. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 represents a serious and alarming step backward—expanding exemptions, re-introducing application fees, and banning anonymous requests. These changes are almost universally opposed … That bill was withdrawn this week by the government in embarrassment, because they couldn't get the support of the majority in this place, because all the parties in this place who aren't in the government and those on the crossbench weren't prepared to support that erosion of FOI. The government had to withdraw that bill. This is how this culture of the Albanese Labor government has been described: 'leaning into a culture of secrecy'. These aren't my words as a Liberal National Party senator from Queensland; these are the words of the Centre for Public Integrity that's established on a nonpartisan basis to hold governments of all political persuasions to account. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 66 Report 66 16:41 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I present the Human rights scrutiny report 2 of 2026 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. 16:41 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to take note of the report which has been tabled by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. In that report, you will find the consideration of the human rights implications of the legislation that was passed in January that was originally an omnibus bill, and that was broken up to deal with gun laws and also prohibited hate groups. I simply make the point that we should all reflect on the fact that this place is receiving that scrutiny report more than a month after the bill was actually passed. That really is not ideal practice, and that really is not the way that we should make laws in this country. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Consideration 66 COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Consideration 66 DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Home Guarantee Scheme, Housing Australia 66 16:44 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Home Guarantee Scheme, the housing market and Housing Australia. MOTIONS 67 MOTIONS Freedom of Speech 67 16:45 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move: That the Senate notes that the people of Australia deserve the right via referendum to decide if our constitution should be amended to ensure that the Commonwealth or a state must not make any law that limits the freedom of speech, including freedom of the press and other media. 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they just don't want to hear.' Those are the words of George Orwell, and they are as true today as they were when he wrote them. I stand here today in defence of something that many Australians assume they already possess but which in truth remains dangerously exposed in this country. I stand in here today in defence of the Australian people's right to free speech. Earlier this afternoon, I had intended to utilise my time to debate my bill, the Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) Bill 2025. However, the government chose not to allow that debate to occur. I will talk about it anyway. The purpose of my bill is very simple, but it's profoundly important. It's to enshrine freedom of speech within the Australian Constitution so that no government, federal or state, can erode that freedom. Though the bill is not before us for debate today, the motion that I moved is modelled directly on the wording of the bill. My proposal is quite straightforward. It would insert a new chapter, 3 (a), into the Australian Constitution, and a new section, 80 (a). That provision would state that the Commonwealth or a state must not make any law that limits freedom of speech, including freedom of the press and other media. In other words, it would do something that many Australians mistakenly believe that they already have and has already been done. It would constitutionally guarantee the right to speak freely. This bill is urgently needed because freedom of speech in Australia rests on increasingly fragile ground. Most Australians assume they possess a fundamental right to express their opinions without any fear. That assumption is understandable, but it is also increasingly dangerous. Unlike many other Western democracies, Australia does not have an explicit constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Instead, we rely on a patchwork of legal interpretations and political restraint, both of which are now under great strain. Over the past decade, we have seen the right of Australians to say what they think come under growing pressure. While parliaments across this country have made no meaningful effort to strengthen protections for speech, they have repeatedly passed laws, both state and federal, that restrict it. We are now approaching a point where it is quite dangerous to openly say things most people might privately believe. It's a brave person, for example, who states that men cannot become women. Think about that for a single moment—a simple biological observation, one that would have been considered self-evident since God created Adam and Eve, can now place a person at risk of being dragged before a tribunal, interrogated for their words and publicly condemned. Is that the country we want to live in? It's a country where citizens must measure every sentence, weigh every opinion and censor their own thoughts out of fear that the state or one of its many administrative tribunals might come knocking at their door. That is not a free society, and the problem is getting worse. Just look at the plethora of so-called 'hate crimes legislation' recently passed at state and federal levels. Whatever their stated intentions might have been, these fast-tracked laws represent a serious and dangerous expansion of state power at the direct expense of fundamental civil liberties. They form part of a worrying trend across state and federal parliaments, a steady encroachment on speech, association and dissent. Piece by piece, law by law, our freedoms are being narrowed. The last thing this country needs is Canberra or the states giving themselves more power, especially when that power is built upon the wonderfully elastic and entirely subjective concept of hate. Now, history teaches us something very simple. Laws drafted in moments of moral urgency often out-live the crisis that gave rise to them. When they do, vague wording and poorly defined concepts stop protecting people. What do they do instead? They start to police ideas. The fatal flaw in these attacks on speech should have been obvious from the beginning. Who decides what 'hate' is? Who defines what 'extremism' is? Who defines what 'harm' is? These terms are fluid by their nature. What is labelled 'mainstream' today could be labelled 'extreme' tomorrow. What is condemned as hate in one political climate may be regarded as genuine political criticism in another. Today, extremist groups may be banned; tomorrow it may be any group that disagrees with the orthodoxy of the day. How long before holding a biblical worldview on sex, gender or marriage is deemed hateful? How long before opposing mass migration or questioning multiculturalism, criticising powerful foreign lobbies or challenging prevailing political narratives attracts scrutiny under these types of laws? Hate is subjective; freedom is not. We are already seeing the consequences of this creeping authoritarianism. Federal senators have been threatened with legal action over words spoken in debates. Australians have been dragged through court for things they said at rallies. Some have been sent to prison for words alone. Let's be clear on this one. There are many opinions expressed in this country that I may strongly disagree with, but disagreement is not the test. Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect speech that we may not like. Having a bad opinion should never be enough to send someone to prison. Once Australians begin to fear that their opinions, their religious beliefs, their political arguments, their associations or their participation in protests could expose them to investigation or sanction, public debate will inevitably narrow. When debate narrows, democracy will start to wither. Yet this place continually nibbles away at our freedoms like termites in a weatherboard cottage, while too many in this chamber applaud quietly from the shadows. Too many in this place like to sell the illusion of safety while quietly undermining liberty. If we truly want to protect freedom in Australia, we must go further than repealing bad laws. We must entrench the principle itself—that is, the principle of free speech. That is precisely what my amendment seeks to do. It would provide Australians with a clear, unambiguous guarantee that governments cannot pass laws limiting freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It would bring Australia closer into line with other western democracies that recognise speech as a foundational liberty. Consider, for example, the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which states 'Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press'. That simple sentence has served a powerful shield for liberty for more than two centuries. Our Constitution already recognises the importance of protecting certain freedoms from government interference. For example, section 116 prohibits the Commonwealth from establishing a religion, imposing religious observance or prohibiting the free speech of religion. In a similar way, my proposal would recognise something that Australians instinctively understand—that people must be free to express their thoughts without fear of government reprisal. Without speech there can be no true expression of thought. Without freedom of thought, there can be no meaningful freedom at all. The enlightenment which lay the foundations of the modern democratic world was built on the simple but revolutionary idea that individuals should be allowed to challenge prevailing beliefs. Progress became possible because people were free to question authority. But if we begin to suppress speech again, if certain ideas become untouchable and beyond criticism, we risk sliding backwards into a new dark age of intellectual conformity, and that serves nobody. What good are all of our other freedoms if people are not free to think independently of the state and express those thoughts openly? This is why my bill ultimately places the question where it belongs: in the hands of the Australian people. It would give Australians the opportunity to vote in a referendum and decide for themselves just how important freedom of speech is to them, and I have great confidence in the judgement of Australians. We may agree or disagree on many issues, but we also believe in a fair go. We believe in open debate, and we believe in the right of every citizen to voice their opinion without fear or favour. There should not be a single senator in this chamber who would oppose free speech. There should not be a single senator here who would tell their constituents that they want to make it harder for Australians to express their opinions. We didn't come to Canberra to oppress our constituents; we came here to defend their freedoms, and my proposal does exactly that. It is long overdue. 16:55 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I don't intend to speak for very long on this subject, but I did want to take the opportunity to commend Senator Babet for the motion and for the prospect of introducing a bill for a referendum to amend the Constitution. I must say that I never really thought that we would be in a position where that would be needed in this country. I don't think any of us expected to see the sorts of incursions on free speech that we've seen. Over the last five or six years in particular, it appears to have been turbocharged. Some of the examples that Senator Babet gave are, of course, very important ones. Those from the last 12 to 18 months, in particular, when we've seen incursions in relation to the ludicrous notion of hate crimes and the difficulty we have, as he rightly points out, in defining those are perhaps good examples of how this can go. He's right to say that this is one of the most important issues and that it's glossed over in this place in a manner that it really shouldn't be, because, if we do not have free speech, we don't really have a democracy. That would be something that, explained in that manner, every Australian would agree with. If you were to hold a vote in a referendum on a constitutional amendment like the one he is suggesting, you would expect that the result of the vote in every jurisdiction in the country would be yes. I'd be very confident of that, particularly as we emerge from the COVID period, 2020-23, when that point was made very clearly. It was an era that saw a perverse mixture of mass hysteria and authoritarianism that overtook the country, making us a laughing stock on the world stage. That period destroyed families, friendships and businesses and led to worse health outcomes across society in the long run. So much of that hardship and destruction could have been avoided if Australians had had the opportunity to speak their minds, but instead their speech was continuously suppressed by all manner of means, including through social media, through the media itself and indeed through the freezing of speech in a social sense as well, I might say. The consequence of the suppression was that bad policies based on outdated and poor research were kept in place far longer than in other nations where there was a more robust debate in place, and the damage that these policies had was greater than it should have been, resulting in social and economic ramifications that I think we're still battling today. As an example of how important this is—this is not just an esoteric concept; this is a concept that has real-world ramifications—that regrettable chapter in our nation's history exposed much of what's wrong with the political culture in this country at the moment. If there was one positive that came from the COVID era, I think it was that it woke up millions of Australians to the precarious state our freedoms are in, particularly in relation to freedom of speech. It was through that period that many Australians first discovered the harsh truth that we really don't have free speech in this country. All we have, as Senator Babet pointed out, is the implied right to free speech, which, when put to the test, is a very difficult and problematic concept, one that I think should now be reduced to writing in our foundational document, the Constitution. Perhaps we shouldn't be relying on the implied right to freedom of speech. We have for too long. Our cultural, academic and political leaders have shown contempt for this key value. Of course, COVID has not been the only example over the last few years. We saw it all the way through the Voice referendum. There are actually too many examples to cite, but all of them follow the same basic pattern: cultural, academic and political elites are pushing illiberal ideas onto the Australian people and, when they realise they can't defend them in the market of free speech, they resort to limiting speech. That's what we've seen with all of those examples. The strategy was originally confined to shutting down speech through bullying and harassment, but increasingly the trend has been towards legal enforcement through state and federal legislation. So, when we talk about the erosion of free speech, we're actually talking about the erosion of our democracy. The countries which actually take this as a virtue and protect free speech enjoy robust democratic processes, culturally dynamic spheres, strong institutions and greater protections of human rights, while those that don't take these steps end up with corruption, human rights abuses, arbitrary laws, entrenched institutional problems and ever-increasing totalitarianism—exactly what we saw during COVID. Indeed, I think we can appreciate the importance of this concept more by observing the outcomes in countries where free speech was once an established norm but has been weakened over time. There's no greater example of that than the United Kingdom, which, despite once being a beacon of free speech and the exchange of ideas, has more recently become a veritable online police state. According to their statistics, the UK government is now arresting tens of thousands of people every year for things they say online, with only a small proportion of these arrests resulting in convictions. But there's that chilling effect, which has arisen from the hate crimes laws and the online safety laws. Many Australians, I think, have found their social media posts removed for pointing out lies and inconsistencies and for asking the wrong questions. While many Australians were censored during COVID, many more self-censored out of fear of the consequences they might face if they spoke their mind. I'd argue that that self-censorship continues in Australia, when it comes to the debate on a wide range of political issues. The fact is that Australians simply no longer feel that their right to free speech is properly protected, and for the health of our democracy this has to change, because, while it might suit those opposite in the short term, the pendulum of politics swings, and what was once a shield could be used as a sword. Australians rightly feel their freedom of speech is under attack, so I think we should be taking the opportunity to correct course and set ourselves upon the path of securing free speech for present and future generations. I support the motion from Senator Babet. 17:02 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the outset, I want to say that Senator Babet is right to raise this extraordinarily important issue with respect to freedom of speech. It is appropriate and proper that we reflect deeply on our freedoms. Senator Antic is also correct in raising issues that arose during the COVID pandemic. I personally believe we should have had a royal commission into government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, I chaired a Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry which recommended that for a whole range of reasons. Having said that, it is important that the complication of the issue is recognised. I want to quote to you from what is probably one of my guiding philosophical texts, John Stuart Mill's famous essay On Liberty. This is how he described the principle, which we should consider—frequently referred to as the harm principle—of where one person's liberty should end and another person's liberty should begin: That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. The complication, in terms of considering where certain rights begin and other rights end, is balancing freedoms on the one hand and harm on the other. In the context of freedom of speech, what concerns me about Senator Babet's proposal is that there is no recognition of the legitimate limitations that our country—and nearly every Western liberal democracy—has had on freedom of speech. We have laws against defamation. We have laws which say that you can't go out and untruthfully, maliciously and vilely besmirch the character of anyone in the community, publish defamatory material, and escape without a response under our legal system. Is Senator Babet saying we shouldn't have those laws? Does he recognise those limitations with respect to freedom of speech? There's quite often a debate as to where the line should be—but, in the course of this debate, I think it's important to put on the record that it is something which needs to be considered. We have laws with respect to national security. An advocate for an absolutist right for freedom of speech should say: 'There should be no limitations. You should be able to say anything.' But what if the national security of the country is jeopardised? What if it's top-secret confidential information that is needed for the defence of the country and the defence of the people whose freedoms you are seeking to protect? Isn't that a legitimate restriction on freedom of speech? We also have laws with respect to incitement. I've sat on a number of legal and constitutional committee hearings looking at some of the laws which Senator Babet and Senator Antic have looked at. You have to consider the real-world consequences of someone who goes out and incites other people to attack other people in the community simply because of their ethnic origin, simply because of their political views, simply because of where they worship, and on occasion incites violences against those people and violence against their places of worship and even violence against them in their own homes. Those are all elements which have to be considered in terms of the freedom-of-speech debate. One of the wisest American jurists was a fellow called Oliver Wendell Holmes. He served with great distinction on the US supreme court. He actually changed his views with respect to freedom of speech. It's an interesting parable in many respects, with respect to how his views on freedom of speech changed. While Senator Babet refers to the US constitution—notwithstanding it had the words in it that Senator Babet referred to—it wasn't really until the 1920s that the United States really enjoyed freedom of speech as we understand that today. It used to be the case in the United States—before some seminal cases in 1919 and 1920, which I'll get to—that freedom of speech was substantially curtailed. If you were going out on the streets advocating the reform of labour laws, to protect the health and safety of workers, you could be put in jail. If you went out on the streets and called for civic reform, you could be put into jail in the United States—even though they had that clause in the US constitution. It wasn't until after World War I—towards the end of World War I—when there were a series of legal cases brought against pacifists, social reformers and others that the Supreme Court of the United States actually carefully considered where the limit should be. Probably the best known articulation of that was by Oliver Wendell Holmes. I want to quote to you from a judgment that he gave, which perhaps gives one of the best articulations of the limits on freedom of speech: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man … falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing … panic. In shorthand, it's called the man-calling-fire-in-a-theatre limitation on free speech—in terms of trying to understand the limits with respect to free speech. I'll read it again: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing … panic. It has always been recognised—at least since the 1920s, in a US context, and even before then—that there are limits on free speech, but none of those limits was recognised in the contribution that was made by Senator Babet and none of those limits was recognised in the contribution that was made by Senator Antic. I passionately believe in freedom of speech. I have a photo of John Stuart Mill hanging in my office, and I've got a bust of Voltaire in my office, both of whom were passionate advocates for free speech. Voltaire was imprisoned for exercising his freedom of speech during the 1700s and was one of the foundational figures of the Enlightenment. It is recognised in their books, including in On Liberty, the fundamental essay on the classical liberal tradition, that there are limits. The question for Senator Babet, in putting forward his motion and in terms of his bill and his referendum—and does Australia really need another referendum? I'll just query that. The question for Senator Babet is: what limits are you going to place? We know we have laws of defamation, laws relating to national security and laws preventing people from inciting people to go out and cause harm, physical harm or property damage, against their fellow Australians, and I think all of those laws are well justified. Prior to agreeing to the step which Senator Babet is proposing, I would want to hear how those legitimate limitations would be considered and would be reflected in any referendum he would put forward, especially given that, on the face of the motion he's brought forward to the Senate, there's not even a recognition that there are valid and legitimate limitations on freedom of speech. However, I'll conclude and say that these are important matters, and I'm pleased Senator Babet has raised them, and I'm pleased with Senator Antic's contribution. I believe it's something we, in this place, need to watch very, very carefully, but, in doing so, I think it is important that all parts of the equation are weighed. 17:12 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales One Nation supports this motion. We agree that the people should have a right to decide if the Constitution should be amended to ensure greater protections for free speech. This is something One Nation believes in very strongly. It's something we've advocated for in this chamber and across the country. I believe the last time we made some attempts to progress this issue was because we acknowledged some of the things that Senator Scarr brought up—that this is a very complicated issue. I believe it was via a reference to develop terms for a referendum. I do believe the Liberals supported that, but it was blocked unfortunately, which is a shame, because it is a very complicated issue. It is through things like the Senate committee process that we can start to unpick this and unpack that and figure out some of those matters that Senator Scarr raised about incitement to violence or shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre and how those types of language or talking don't actually constitute free speech. I don't believe that Senator Babet, through this motion, was advocating for those things. It is a shame that we haven't had a greater ability as a Senate to unpack those questions. We have tried to. We have put forward proposals. We have looked at investigating this, but, again, we've been shut down and silenced by the other side of the chamber, who do not feel that this is such an important issue, who feel that those concerned about the continued erosion of our free speech don't deserve a voice and this doesn't deserve further inquiry. It does; it definitely does, and that is why One Nation has been so strong on free speech. It is why we have supported a constitutional change to a referendum, however that may be. As Senator Scarr rightly points out, this is a complicated issue, and the wording would have to be determined in a very careful way. It's why we pushed for an inquiry into the terms and the rules, because it's not just about politics. Ultimately, this is about the kind of country we are handing to our children. As a One Nation senator for New South Wales, I represent families and small-business owners and farmers and retirees and young people, and all of them are becoming sick and tired of having their voices shut down. They're becoming tired of being silenced. I am proud that One Nation has been so strong on this issue. I can say that Senator Hanson has been right on this issue. Even Senator Hanson herself has had her voice shut down. Even she is being dragged through the courts right now, because we have seen that the implied right to political expression which is in the Constitution doesn't go far enough to protect the capacity of Australians to speak and to have opinions. If we continue to let the Labor Party and the Greens and others control language and debate, we will lose Australia. We'll also start to lose democracy, because freedom of speech and the capacity to talk freely go to the heart of our democracy. If we cannot debate clearly, if we cannot talk frankly, if we cannot speak without fear that we may be dragged through the courts or find ourselves in prison, then we cannot have a true debate and a true democracy, because if Australians can't speak freely then our elections become theatre and the government becomes something that does things to you, not something that you can affect truly. If you cannot argue for the things you believe for fear that the government will step in to silence you and censor your political expression or your freedom of speech, then we'll start to lose the Australia that we live in. It's unfortunate. At times, it seems that those in this government think that the public needs to be managed like children. They act like disagreement is dangerous. They believe that questions are offensive. They do not believe that ordinary people can be trusted to think for themselves, so they are desperate to control what you can say. They will shame you for asking questions. They will smear you as hateful and ignorant or extreme for asking questions. A perfect example is Senator Hanson, who engages in complicated topics and raises important issues. And suddenly all of the laws of the land are turned around and people are crying for her to be put back in prison: 'Take her to court!' We see that this is occurring because there has been an erosion of our freedom of speech—of our right to political expression. We truly believe—One Nation believes—that, unless we take steps to enshrine in our Constitution a stronger protection for freedom of speech, then this slow creep of censorship that we are seeing, which is stifling our democracy, will only get worse. Again, this is happening because Senator Hanson and we in One Nation challenge a system that, in many ways, divides Australians for their own benefit. It's a system where the reward for Australians who work hard, pay their taxes and follow the rules is to then get lectured at by people who don't have to live with the consequences of their own policies, because they might hold the right political views. So, when they express their political opinion, they are free and safe to do so, but when others express theirs, suddenly their political expression will end with them winding up in prison. And that cannot continue. One Nation will always defend free speech because free speech is how ordinary Australians, everyday Australians, defend themselves. It is through free speech that they have the ability to say, 'This isn't working.' It is through free speech that they have the right to say, 'I don't agree.' It is through free speech that they have the right to demand an explanation and to ask who benefits. And it is through free speech that they have the right to say, 'Put Australia first. Put our nation first.' When governments and institutions start talking about policing speech, regulating opinions and cracking down on 'wrong' views, every Australian should be alert. That is why we will not ever let this issue go. In listening to Senator Scarr, we understand those points that he raises about the complexity of this problem, but One Nation believes that it has gone too far, that we can see with things like 18(c) and these hate crime laws that have come in that they move beyond the realm of some of those issues that are raised about incitement to violence. They move into censorship of legitimate political expression. It reaches a point where the only way you can then defend against this is via a referendum. It's not that anyone is particularly keen to rush back to a referendum; that's why, the last time One Nation raised this, we sought to do so through a committee process to determine terms of reference and do things in an orderly and managed way. But, again, we get shut down. We cannot have this debate. We cannot have these complex discussions, because the other side of the chamber doesn't want to allow them. That should concern you because, when government and institutions start policing speech, it never stops at the people they deem to be the extremists. It always winds up targeting everyday people. First they go after people with the loud voices, but in the end they will go after the people with the quiet voices. They will go after the quiet Australians. And then they'll go after everyone. That is why One Nation will always stand up for free speech: without it, we cannot have truth and, without truth, we cannot have a strong country. Let me be clear: asking questions is not fearmongering. So often it is that questioning things, questioning the government or having difficult discussions gets you accused fearmongering or dividing the country. I believe that asking questions is your job as a citizen and that it's our duty as senators, which is why One Nation raises this issue. It's why we supported Senator Babet on this. It's why we pushed for an inquiry into terms of reference for a referendum. Australians, when they're asked to vote on something as serious as constitutional change—look at the last referendum, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. That was such a pivotal moment, and you could see how the other side—the Labor Party, the Greens and others—so desperately wished to crack down on the capacity for parties like One Nation to staunchly oppose their side and to staunchly argue for our side. In the end, it was through that debate and that argument that the public turned around. When it started off, the polling showed that they were in favour of the voice. Then One Nation led the way. We said: 'No. We believe this is wrong. We believe this is divisive. We believe this makes our country worse, not better. We should all be a nation of people united together. We should not be putting this in our Constitution.' We led the way on that, and we won the argument. Then others came across and began to make the same arguments—arguments I believe many wished to essentially make illegal. I believe it's no stretch to say that some of the things we were arguing for others wished would be illegal. They wished they would have shut us down, and that would have been a tragedy. If we did not have the capacity to make those arguments then we couldn't have won the debate, and then that voice to parliament—the terrible, divisive voice to parliament—would have become a permanent fixture in our nation's constitution. That would have been a tragedy for this nation. It was only through free speech and an implied right to political expression that we were able to win that debate. As a result, you can see that others then said: 'We can't let that happen again. We can't continue to allow a situation where people are able to argue those points.' They will move to shut them down, which is why I do believe the Senate needs to take more seriously the issue of protecting free speech. Words matter, definitions matter and, when legislation passes in a rushed way, legal consequences matter. The last example of that was in laws we took post Bondi with the hate crimes legislation. We talk about doing things in a responsible way, but there was nothing responsible about the way that legislation was pushed through. What we had was a very complicated bill that was put to a committee process, and there was a limited time to look at it. Then, all of a sudden, overnight, that bill was pulled apart and a new one was plonked down, and people were given mere hours to look at it. So, when people talk about being responsible and treating the issue of free speech in a responsible way, perhaps they should reflect on that instance, because protecting free speech is a difficult and complicated thing in many ways, but, if you're not careful, you destroy it too. If you are not careful about the process, if you don't allow debate, if you don't allow scrutiny of new legislation, you suddenly start picking away at free speech, and Australia becomes a much worse place for it. I'll finish with this. Australia is a nation held together by rules, principles and common understanding, and one of those values is free speech. We have a right to speak and to criticise the government. We have a right to advocate for ourselves, we have a right to advocate for our nation first, and we have a right to a shared belief that we're all Australians regardless of our background, that all of our opinions are equal and that they should not be censored or stepped on by the government. So, when you see others then attempt to demonise those advocating for free speech as extremists, that is divisive in itself. I commend you, Senator Babet, for raising this issue. We do need to take the time to look at this more. It is something One Nation has spent a lot of time on. We will again in the future because, again, if we do not protect this valuable thing that we have, one day it will be lost, and we'll never get it back. 17:26 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia In the short time that is available to me, I'd like to thank Senator Bell for his contribution, because there's actually a lot in that to reflect and comment on. There are two words that Senator Bell used which I think are very important to amplify. The first is 'responsibilities' and the second is 'carefulness'. Our freedoms and rights in this country are to be exercised responsibly, and, when people get aggrieved about the expressions of freedoms and rights, it's often because people choose to express them with irresponsibility. The other is the matter of carefulness. When it comes to legislative change and when it comes to constitutional reform, we must always act with abundant care and caution. That is the Edmund Burke in me. Senator Scarr 282997 Hear, hear! Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Thank you, Senator Scarr. I suspect there's some Edmund Burke in you, and listening to Senator Bell's contribution, I suspect there is some Edmund Burke in him as well, and that is to be applauded. But Senator Bell, I think, has expressed, as many have, a misunderstanding of the events and preconditions that led to the 'no' vote at the last referendum. I have to say that I think it's probably the least understood referendum in our whole country. There are certain features of our referendums that exist irrespective of the subject matter. Those are, first, a great caution amongst Australians in changing the Constitution, whatever the merit; and, second, the fact that constitutional referendums start with high levels of support and end in strong levels of resistance, which speaks to Australians' suspicion of central government, the sense of isolation that citizens feel and the strong affirmation they feel for their states and their regional communities. It is important to recognise that the freedom of speech we have in our country is consciously limited. As Senator Scarr remarked, it's limited in a number of ways. But there is a free speech debate that I think we should start to talk about in our country and in this Senate chamber, and that is the ambition of some people on the left of Australian politics to introduce a bill of rights. Our founding fathers made a very conscious decision that we would have a constitution, that we would instil the strongest of parliamentary sovereignty and that we would not embrace a bill of rights. In this parliament already, in various committees, there are plans and ambitions to have a federal bill of rights. Those of us who are institutionally conservative, have a great respect for and want to uphold the freedom of speech in our country—in the Australian context, in the Australian way—can find a sense of unity not necessarily around Senator Babet's bill but in opposing a bill of rights. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Motor Neurone Disease 73 17:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania This week advocates, families and people living with motor neurone disease gathered in Parliament House for the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Motor Neurone Disease for 2026. While I was unable to attend on the evening, as I was required in the Senate chamber, I am proud to be co-chair of the parliamentary friends group, alongside Alex Hawke. The group brings together members and senators from across the parliament with shared purpose to raise awareness of motor neurone disease and support better outcomes for Australians living with MND. As everyone in this place knows, parliamentary friendship groups play an important role. They create space for collaboration, and they ensure voices from the community are heard. That is particularly important when it comes to a disease like MND. MND is one of the most devastating diagnoses a family can receive. It's progressive, it is life limiting, and at present there is no cure. Around 2,700 Australians are living with MND today. The average life expectancy following diagnosis is just two to three years. But statistics alone cannot capture the full reality of this disease. Statistics alone cannot capture the full understanding of what people go through. They represent real lives, real families and communities facing extraordinary challenges. Motor neurone disease affects families, partners, children and entire communities. It changes daily lives in ways that are hard to imagine until you see it up close. At the launch earlier this week, those attending heard from researchers and advocates about the progress being made in clinical trials and treatment access. One of the most moving moments of the evening came when a fellow Tasmanian, Helen O'Neill, addressed the room and spoke about losing her husband, Phil, to MND. Phil was diagnosed on 4 October 2024. From the beginning the progression of the disease was rapid. Within two months of the first symptoms appearing, Phil required round-the-clock care. Helen had spent over 50 years working as a nurse. She understood illness and care better than most, but, as she explained, nothing prepares a family for watching someone you love gradually lose their independence. Phil wanted to remain on their hobby farm for as long as possible. The community rallied around them. Family and friends helped build ramps and modify the bathroom so Phil could continue living at home. Helen spoke honestly about how difficult it was for Phil to accept needing so much help. He hated that his wife and daughter had to do so much for him. Phil passed away on 11 July 2025, around 280 days after his diagnosis, just a month before what would have been his 73rd birthday. Helen shared her story to remind us that the decisions made in this place have a real impact on people living with MND and their families. Her story is a reminder of why this work matters. Investment in research is about improving quality of life, it is about giving families more time together, and, ultimately, it is about extending people's lives. The Parliamentary Friends of Motor Neurone Disease provides a forum for that work. It brings together parliamentarians, researchers, clinicians, industry partners and families to ensure that progress continues. But, as Helen's story reminds us, there is still more work to be done. We must continue to support research. We must continue to strengthen clinical infrastructure. And we must continue to stand alongside Australians living with MND and their families. I also want to thank MND Australia for their leadership and advocacy and to acknowledge the clinicians and researchers working tirelessly to find new treatments. In this parliament, we have a responsibility to act with purpose for the 2,700 Australians living with motor neurone disease today and for the families across the country hoping that tomorrow will look different. Cometti, Mr Dennis John, AM, Western Australia: Aviation Industry 74 17:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to acknowledge the passing of Western Australia's great sporting voice, Dennis Cometti. For more than half a century, Dennis provided the soundtrack to Australian sport. His deep, clear voice; his dry humour; his meticulous preparation; and his remarkable feel for the moment made him one of the finest commentators this country has ever produced. For those of us from Western Australia, Dennis always was one of our own. Born in Geraldton in 1949, he built a remarkable career that spanned 51 seasons of football and the entire history of the AFL national competition. Before he came to the microphone, Dennis was a footballer himself, playing with west Perth and later in Perth's suburban competitions, including the Sunday football league, where he played for Wanneroo and Maddington. Those Perth suburbs' grounds helped shape the man who would later become the voice of the AFL. He understood the game from the grassroots up, from local ovals in places like Wanneroo to the biggest stages in Australian sport. Dennis Cometti had a rare gift. He made the game sound bigger, brighter and often a little funnier. Western Australians are proud to claim him as one of our own. I extend my condolences, as I'm sure every Western Australian does, to his wife, Velia; his children, Mark and Ricki; and all who knew and loved him. Vale, Dennis. I've just returned from my latest visit to the Pilbara, the engine room of the Australian economy. While I was in Karratha speaking with local residents, business owners and families, one issue came up time and time again: the cost of regional airfares. For many people in Western Australia's north, the price of simply travelling within their own state has become a major cost-of-living burden and, increasingly, a source of isolation. Last week, a petition in the WA state parliament calling for cheaper regional airfares closed with more than 10,000 signatures collected. The petitioners made it clear that airfares between Perth and regional centres remained unaffordable for many residents, placing financial strain on families, limiting access to essential services and discouraging tourism and regional development. They acknowledged the importance of the WA state government's capped residential fares scheme but called for it to be made permanent at a reduced level or, at the very least, maintained at its current settings alongside stronger cooperation with airlines to get better outcomes for aviation consumers in Western Australia that are both sustainable and affordable. What this petition demonstrates is the depth of frustration in regional communities across Western Australia. People are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness. They're asking for the ability to visit family, attend medical appointments, support their children's education and participate in everyday life without facing costs that would be extraordinary anywhere else in our country. Regional Western Australians feel they are being priced out of connectivity. While the state government's decision to extend the airfare cap scheme for another five years is welcome, the reality on the ground is that the caps are still too high, particularly during so-called peak periods, which residents say seem to apply most of the time. From July next year, capped one-way fares during high-demand periods will rise to $265 for destinations within just 1,000 kilometres of Perth and to $385 for those further away, affecting communities such as Karratha, Broome, Port Hedland, Newman and Kununurra. Think about that. For a family, that quickly becomes thousands of dollars. One Karratha mother has estimated that the changes will cost her family an extra $860 just to travel to Perth. Others told me they are now choosing to drive 16 hours rather than fly, because it's cheaper, a choice that raises potential safety concerns on remote roads. I also heard concerns about access to specialist health care, with some treatments not covered by travel assistance schemes, meaning families face not only higher medical bills but also higher flight and accommodation costs on top. For communities that are already managing high living costs, as many are in the region, this compounds the financial pressure significantly. Western Australians living in our resource-rich regions contribute enormously to the national economy. They should not feel cut off from the rest of their own state. Affordable regional aviation is not a privilege; it is essential infrastructure, and governments must continue to work with airlines and industry to deliver fairer, more-accessible airfares for WA's regional communities. Culture and the Arts 75 17:40 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia The life of the arts, far from being an interruption or a distraction in the life of a nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilisation. The words of President Kennedy, inscribed at the Kennedy Centre in Washington, DC, speak to the importance of the arts to the soul of a nation. And as Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, has said, 'A nation with a strong cultural policy is a nation where we know ourselves, know each other and invite the world to better know us.' Australian books, artwork, film and television, as well as music and theatre, are entertainment, but they are something much more than that as well. They are expressions of who we are as a people. They capture our humour, our struggles, our landscapes and our stories and project them to the world. Australia has a proud history of recognising the importance of culture in the development of public policy. In 1994, then prime minister Paul Keating released Creative Nation, the first formally developed cultural policy from the federal government. In 2013, under the Labor government led by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Creative Australia was born, with the goal of providing support to our vibrant cultural sector, which reflected the diversity of Australia and its people. When the Albanese government was elected in 2022, arts minister Tony Burke began work on a proposal to breathe life into the arts sector once more—a sector that had been devastated by COVID-19 and years of funding cuts and uncertainty under the coalition. The result was 'Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place', a five-year plan to generate the momentum necessary for Australia's artists to thrive and Australia's stories to continue to be told. 'Revive' affirmed the government's commitment to the position of the arts in our culture and the importance of Australian heritage as part of Australia's national story. We see culture and the arts as a national asset and a source of great pride, not an afterthought or a waste of money. I am proud to be a member of a party that has a track record of supporting creative endeavour, and I am proud of the government that has successfully delivered a comprehensive cultural policy in this country, the first in more than a decade. The Revive policy has modernised how we support the arts. It recognises that creativity today is found in different spaces and manifested in different ways, in spaces that have traditionally not benefited from government support, such as contemporary and live music, gaming, streaming and digital storytelling. The Australian content obligation on streaming services, a policy of this government that has now been implemented, will ensure that global platforms that generate billions of dollars from Australian audiences invest back into our production so that our stories can continue to be told here and shared with the rest of the world. Live music is also a very important part of Australian culture, and Revive Live is providing critical support for our unique and much celebrated live music venues and festivals. In Western Australia that support is already making a difference. It means emerging artists can still find their audience at Mojo's, in North Freo, a venue that has launched the careers of many Australian musicians. It means bands can still take to the stage at the iconic Rosemount Hotel—the Rosie—where Perth indie band Death by Denim will play their last show this weekend, at the very same venue where they launched their careers a decade ago. These venues are more than just buildings. They are places where artists perform their first gigs, where members of the audience hear new songs for the first time, and where friends and memories are made. This is the stuff of Australian culture. The government has also established Sharing the National Collection program for the National Gallery of Australia, to allow our wonderful national trove of art to be taken to where people live around the country, and we've already seen it come out to Western Australia with great success. The loan of artworks from the National Gallery to the Wanneroo Regional Gallery last year triggered a remarkable 481 per cent increase in the visitors to that gallery. All told, since the launch of Revive in January 2023, the government has completed 75 of the 85 things that it promised to do in the five-year plan. This government understands that, if we want Australian stories to continue to be told and Australian creativity to flourish, artists need support, and we need that support to be consistent and long provided. Fossil Fuel Industry 76 17:45 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to warn of a dangerous and increasingly prevalent risk to our democracy. Australians have been told that beer drinkers pay more tax than gas companies. Others say that the Commonwealth receives more revenue from HECS payments than from the petroleum resources rent tax. These cherrypicked statements make effective social media grabs, but they are intentionally deceptive, used by activists to hijack our important national debate. Activists are deliberately provoking outrage to pit Australians against an industry that pays the bills. They wrap this campaign up in a cloak of fairness when, in reality, their ultimate aim is to end fossil fuel extraction and leave Australian poorer and in the dark. These people funding this anti-gas activism do not have Australian interests at heart, and I will have more to say about this coming weeks. If Australia sends a message that taxation settings can be reshaped by activist campaigns, investment will go offshore. The PRRT is profit based tax which applies once projects recover their enormous upfront investment costs. Around 70 per cent of Australia's gas production occurs in Commonwealth waters, where the PRRT applies instead of state royalties. Treasury estimates companies will pay $8.3 billion in PRRT over the next five years, while onshore gas paid $2.1 billion in state royalties and licence fees in last year alone. Large-scale gas developments require tens of billions of dollars in capital investment before a single dollar of profit is made. Infrastructure must be built, facilities constructed, export capacity established and jobs created. No Australian business pays tax before a profit is made, but yet, when it comes to energy projects, activist groups and activist senators expect us to pretend the basic economic principles should no longer apply. The PRRT is not the only gas paid by the Australian gas industry. Producers pay company tax, income tax, state and territory royalties, payroll tax and regulatory charges. They also employ tens of thousands of Australians whose wages generate income tax for the Commonwealth and support local businesses, coffee shops and fishing venues. The reality of this is this: Australia's oil and gas sector is one of the largest taxpayers in the country. In 2024-25 alone, the industry contributed a record $21.9 billion dollars in taxes and royalties to state and federal governments before employment taxes. That is enough to fund the $17.7 billion of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the entire year. Over the past three years, the sector has delivered almost $60 billion in taxes and royalties to Australians. The oil and gas industry is now the second-largest corporate taxpayer in Australia, contributing $18.7 billion this financial year. This helps to fund schools, hospitals, roads and essential services, which are relied upon by every Australian. Natural gas alone contributes $105 billion every year to Australia's economy, representing 3.7 per cent of the national GDP and supporting more than 215,000 Australian jobs. That is engineers in Gladstone, diesel fitters in Roma and geologists in Brisbane. They are truck drivers, apprentices and contractors across regional Australia earning strong wages and supporting their local communities. Since 2010, Australia's LNG sector has invested more than $400 billion into the Australian economy, and yet activists would rather see them go offshore. Australia's system is different from countries often cited in comparison, like Norway and Qatar. These nations achieve higher government returns because the governments pay for it. They own large shares of energy projects, but this means taxpayers carry more of the burden. Norway, for example, provides exploration refunds worth up to 71.8 per cent of project costs to encourage investment, whereas, in Australia, private companies take the risk. The coalition will always stand for strong policies to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McDonald. Senate adjourned at 17 : 50