DOCUMENTS

2026-03-26 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 26 March 2026

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025 1

Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia I'm pleased to be able to continue my contribution from 4 February because a lot has happened since then. There are lots of homes underway thanks to the work of our Labor government, and while some things have changed, like there being a new leader of the Liberal Party, what has stayed the same is that it's the same old Liberal Party, it's the same old shadow minister, it's the same bad housing ideas and it's the same approach that will do nothing to get Australians into homes. Since Senator Bragg brought this bill before the chamber, under Labor's plan more homes are being built—not promised, not modelled, not talked about, not just funded, but built. I see it every single day. I wonder if Senator Bragg drives around with his eyes closed, because what I can see in my community is real action on housing, and it's happening fast. On my drive into my electorate office in the morning, just down the road, in the electorate of my good friend the member for Swan, Zaneta Mascarenhas, there is a Housing Australia Future Fund project underway in Rivervale. It's 171 affordable apartments in the heart of Perth, very close to the CBD and in an absolutely beautiful part of our great state, right on the banks of the Derbal Yerrigan. These are homes for frontline workers, for veterans and for older women at risk of homelessness. This is what housing delivery looks like. Just across the road from that project in Rivervale, there are more developments, as part of a pipeline of over 1,100 affordable and social homes across Perth, delivered in partnership with the Cook Labor government. This is happening right now. I think this is a really important point for us to talk about in this debate. We should be honest about what the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025 does. It doesn't just block the build of new housing—although it does do that. It creates uncertainty in a system that depends on long-term investment. Housing projects don't just pop up overnight. They require years of planning, financing and construction, and they require dedication from government. I think it's important we remember why we're in this mess in the first place, and that is that, under the former government, there was no commitment to building the homes that Australians needed. After a decade of mismanagement and, frankly, neglect on housing under the former government, Labor is getting on with the job. We are cleaning up the mess that we were left with, and that means there is catching up to do. A bill like this stands in the way of building more homes in communities like mine and the ones I am privileged to represent in Western Australia. Developers, builders and community housing providers make decisions based on stable policy settings, and what this bill does is threaten to unwind those settings. You can't ask builders to commit capital, hire workers and start construction while also telling them that that could change at any moment. Housing supply depends on confidence, and this bill, the Liberal Party and Senator Bragg undermine that. I am sick and tired of Senator Bragg and the Liberal Party standing in the way of the homes that Australians need. Contracts are being signed, finances locked in, workers are on site, projects are moving—I can see them going up around me in Perth, and this bill stands in the way of that achievement. It would stop it in its tracks. These are homes that Australians are counting on. This bill wouldn't build a single home, but it risks standing in the way of thousands. Our government will not allow the Liberal Party to stand in the way of the homes that Australians need. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [09:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

Third Reading 2 09:13 The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand no amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call Senator Bragg to move the third reading. 09:13 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. [09:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 3

Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024

Second Reading 3 09:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is a great day when non-government bills pass this Senate. It shows that democracy is alive and well. The world is alert and alive to the con that is this government. They call themselves the most transparent government in history; the rest of the world disagrees. So I was pleased to see the passage of the last bill. But now, to speak on the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 brought forward by my colleague Senator Bragg, it's an important piece of legislation that relates to the governance of the HAFF and how those funds are to be used and distributed, what they can use those funds to invest in and what they cannot use those funds to invest in. The bill in essence limits the capacity for the HAFF to invest in projects or entities associated with the CFMEU, which I think is a very sound measure to put in place. We are talking about, by extension, taxpayers money. Of course, we know how the HAFF was set up. It was money borrowed which was being paid for by the taxpayer of Australia ostensibly to construct homes, and here we are, a number of years on from the establishment of the HAFF, and we haven't got many homes, and they've had to borrow money to set up a fund to build these homes that aren't being built. Putting all of that to one side, how the funding is used and which organisations are able to access funds is important. Across the country, there are extreme concerns about the operations of the CFMEU. In the state of Victoria, nothing short of corrupt activity is occurring when it comes to public infrastructure projects and goodness knows what else when it comes to construction. Prices have been blown out of the stratosphere because of the corrupt influence of an organisation of this nature. When you have union super funds linked to this union, and a fund of this nature controlled by the government, we need to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that taxpayers' money is protected. Whether it be money directly contributing to building homes or paying down the debt associated with the establishment of the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund—which has yet to properly build enough homes for us given the government's target was 1.2 million homes over five years, which was the set target—we need to ensure they are putting in protections, which is what this bill seeks to do now. Of course, the government will no doubt oppose this legislation. This is a government that can't be held to account on its targets because they mean nothing. They were just promises made at election time along with a range of other promises relating to the cost of living, power prices and the like. They don't care. They say these things at election time; there is no follow-through. There is no commitment to deliver on these things. Promises are just words, and those words are certainly not bonds, despite the claims by the Prime Minister to the contrary. This government is in denial about so many things. They are in denial about what's happening when it comes to fuel in this country, which will have an impact on the construction industry. They are in denial about the impact that that crisis, which they have been caught flat-footed in responding to, will have on Australian households and businesses, including those seeking to build a home. They're in denial about the issues facing anyone who wants to build something in this country—around labour shortages, around the cost of materials and around delays in approvals. They are in denial about the ineffectiveness of their own schemes, and they're in denial about the corruption associated with the union, one of their paymasters, who can access funds from this program as at today, unless these laws pass the parliament. They're also a government that's all about blame, not responsibility. When there's a problem, they look everywhere else: former governments, overseas conflicts, things outside of their control. It's always someone else's fault, and there is nothing this government can do or will do to address these issues. It's beyond our control; it's lamentable that you are all paying the price. This is not what governments should do. Along with denial and blame, all of this sadly leads to an outcome for the Australian people, which is being let down. Again and again, Australians are being let down by this government, a government that has lost control of what it is they need to do in Australia's interests on housing, on fuel. Whatever the issue confronting Australians might be, and there are many, they are let down by a government that's lost control and has no plan to address these issues. A government that is actually one of integrity, a government that is one that genuinely wants to resolve the issues that are at the heart of the housing crisis in this country, would support this legislation. It would cut out the cancerous influence of this union and its proxies when it comes to projects of a significant nature or even minor in nature. That example of cost blowouts of between $15 billion and $30 billion in Victoria—it's not just pretend money and it's not just some line in a press release or a news article; that is taxpayers' money that could have otherwise been spent on things that would be of benefit to the people of Victoria and the people of this country. Health infrastructure projects, public infrastructure, roads and rail, sports, public housing—all those sorts of things could've been done a lot better, and a lot more of them could have been undertaken and completed by now, if the influence of this corrupt organisation was cut out of public spending when it comes to infrastructure. I think that's why this legislation is so very important. Again, as I say, this government is in denial. They spend all their time blaming everyone else, going deep into history. This government has been in power now for four years. We're approaching half a decade of Labor rule in this country, and, of course, it's still everyone else's fault in the past: former governments or overseas conflicts that started a long time ago. They've done nothing to offset the impact, and, as I say, Australians are being let down. That is why the opposition, through our shadow minister Senator Bragg, have brought forward this very sensible legislation to ensure that we can control a government that would rather put the interests of their union paymasters ahead of the interests of Australians who can't get into houses, who can't afford to make ends meet every day of every week and who can't put fuel in the car, because, of course, they've been let down by a government that didn't think there was going to be a crisis, despite the months of notice that the rest of the world seemed to have to put in place measures to address what is now a terrible crisis. I really do implore this government to support Senator Bragg's bill, because it is the right thing to do. There is not a good reason to prevent the government supporting this legislation in the interests of good outcomes for our country—for those people who want to access housing and for those people who just want a fair go in this country. If they don't vote for it, well, again, it shows what their priorities are and how out of touch they are with Australians doing it tough. I hope they support the legislation. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading on the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [09:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Whitten, T. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. 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. 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. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Askew, W. Farrell, D. E. Cadell, R. P. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. McDonald, S. E. Ayres, T. McGrath, J. A. Gallagher, K. R.

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 5 DOCUMENTS Goods and Services Tax 5 Order for the Production of Documents 5 09:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As was explained to the Senate when we voted on this attendance on Monday this week, the government has complied with the OPD. The documents relating to this motion were tabled last week on Wednesday 18 March, with a courtesy copy provided to Senator Smith at the same time that the documents were sent to be tabled. The government confirmed there were three documents in scope and tabled two. In responding to the OPD, we stated that one document is fully covered by public interest immunity and another is partially covered and therefore partially redacted. As senators are aware, the distribution of the GST attracts vastly different positions across jurisdictions. Treasury's advice, which we agree with, is that disclosure of some material would or might reasonably be expected to damage relations between the Commonwealth and the states. Further, the Productivity Commission is currently undertaking a review into the GST. While this is a routine review legislated by the former government in 2018, the PC will do its job independently. We are conscious to not release material that could prejudice that inquiry, and the PC must be allowed to consult with the states and territories independently. 09:34 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's response. I very much welcome the minister's contribution just then. And I thank the minister for her brief but revealing response. Just to recap, the Senate has asked for the release of documents in regard to the GST distribution. The government, in its admission just a few moments ago by Minister Gallagher, has conceded that two of three documents have been revealed but not the third. In addition to that, the minister has also confirmed that attitudes to the GST differ vastly across jurisdictions. That is not a surprise, but it's an important admission that what the government is to now contemplate is how it responds to the concerns of Labor premiers and Labor treasurers that the GST is not meeting their needs—and that's code for doing the wrong thing by Western Australia. The key question here is: Why is it that the government will not release all of those three documents? Why is it that they have chosen to release just two? When it comes to the GST, we know it's not a technical exercise but one that is about fairness, that is about trust, that is about the economic future and prosperity of Western Australia. We know, at the moment, that the Productivity Commission is being tasked to review the GST arrangements that were put in place by the coalition government in 2018. That task, which will include the release of an interim report at the end of August this year and the release of a final report at the end of December this year, could put at risk that very necessary GST deal that has kept Western Australians safe and prosperous. Like I said, we need a GST deal that is about fairness, about trust and about the economic future of Western Australia. Western Australians understand better than anyone else what happens when the GST system stops being fair, when the GST system stops being one that people can trust. Western Australians have lived through a GST distribution system that collapsed. It collapsed so far that Western Australia was entitled to just 29c in the dollar, an extraordinary low, a low that was never predicted when the GST distribution system was first put in place. I think it's important to get some other statistics on the record, and here the Western Australian government has dropped the ball. The Western Australian Labor government has been unconvincing in making the case on why WA deserves to retain the GST deal that the coalition government put in place in 2018. Here are some important facts. For the last 10 years of the past 25 years, WA has received less than 50c in GST distribution. Meanwhile, New South Wales and Victoria have never dropped below 83c. Queensland has never dropped below 90c. This is not a marginal imbalance; it is a structural failure. The GST system in our country has been in place for 25 years. It is an effective means of distributing income between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, but, for that particular period, Western Australia was treated with great unfairness. Like I said, in 10 of the last 25 years WA's distribution has never exceeded 50c. Meanwhile, New South Wales and Victoria have never dropped below 83c, and Queensland has never dropped below 90c. So, when the South Australian premier, Peter Malinauskas, criticises the WA deal as coming at the expense of South Australians, or when the New South Wales premier, Chris Minns, calls for an alternative GST distribution model, what they are choosing to ignore is the gross unfairness that Western Australia and Western Australians have suffered for a period under the GST arrangements. As the peak Productivity Commission considers this GST review, with the interim report in August, all eyes will be on the WA Labor government to make sure it's doing everything it can to protect our GST deal. (Time expired) 09:39 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to take note of the minister's response and I commend Senator Dean Smith for bringing this before us and persevering in getting answers for Western Australians. I want to also reiterate how important this is for Western Australia. For us the GST is not a technical formula or a budget footnote; it is a reminder of the decades we spent being short-changed, watching our wealth leave and not come back. Senator Dean Smith would agree with me that we have earned the right to demand answers. For too long, WA was treated as the federation's golden goose. We dug the iron ore, we shipped the gas, we bankrolled the nation's prosperity and then we watched Canberra hand our money to other states while Western Aussies went without. At the depth of the old system, WA received just 30c back for every dollar we contributed. At one point, we were $6 billion a year short of our fair share. Sometimes $1 billion is hard to conceptualise. For Western Aussies watching, that would build us three women and babies hospitals with a price tag of $1.8 billion, with some change to spare. The 2018 reforms fixed that. They were hard fought, hard won and absolutely essential. Today I want to acknowledge Premier Cook and the state government and the premiers before him for continuing to stand firm. WA isn't asking for some special treatment. We're asking for what is fair and we intend to keep it. Right now, like Senator Dean Smith mentioned, the Productivity Commission is reviewing these very reforms, with a final report due in December 2026. Every Western Australian should be paying close attention: what was won can be undone. That is exactly why order No. 304 exists—to demand that the Treasurer put on the table every piece of correspondence, every briefing note, every model and every minute relating to GST distribution. We don't want any more backroom deals or stitched-up arrangements negotiated over Western Australians' heads. The sandgropers have been dudded before. We know what it looks like and we will not be going back. Question agreed to. Cybersafety 7 Order for the Production of Documents 7 09:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government does not agree with aspersions cast by this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the keen interest in this chamber in the delivery of the Albanese government's world-leading social media minimum age. With regard to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that this information has been provided by the independent regulator. A regulator is best placed to provide a holistic picture of the wider digital environment, not individual companies. Further to this, as the senator might be able to appreciate, disclosure of the specific information obtained by eSafety has the ability to prejudice the regulator's ongoing ability to appropriately and effectively investigate compliance. It's interesting to see the opposition repeatedly siding with big tech over our very own regulator, a regulator I would remind the coalition they appointed not once but twice. While this government delivers, those opposite have been focused on division and disinformation. At every opportunity, the coalition have talked down Australia's world-leading work to protect children online. In spite of this, we've stayed focused on the task of protecting children online and giving parents the tools to navigate an increasingly dangerous and complex online environment. 09:44 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation. We are now three months and two High Court cases into the social media ban, and it all seems to be going swimmingly. The kids are out there kicking the footy, youth in regional and rural areas have been cut off from their online support networks and there has been a spike of young people ringing Kids Helpline as a direct consequence of this ban. In fact, headspace have said that one in 10 young people have cited the ban as a factor in their seeking mental health support. In January, we saw the tastefully delayed figure of 4.7 million accounts paraded in triumph throughout the broadsheets and tabloids of this country that had campaigned so forcefully for this law. Since that number has come out, many questions have been raised about the accuracy of the government's data. According to the AFR, it included inactive accounts, duplicate accounts and accounts the users had already closed. Senator Dean Smith, like many of us, has been interested in the origin of this figure, but the government has not complied with his order for the production of documents, and eSafety has not released platform by platform data that we have requested. I was reading an interesting paper by the former Clerk of the Senate Harry Evans. In a 2008 paper entitled 'The Senate, Accountability and Government Control' he wrote: In the Parliament of 2001-04, there were 89 orders and more than half of them, 46, were not complied with. The reasons given by the government for not producing documents came to be increasingly remote from any recognisable claim of public interest immunity, and often consisted of simple assertions that documents were confidential and off-hand dismissals of the non-government parties' interests in the information. It seems there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to governments that are determined to be secretive, even when it means defying the Senate and the powers granted to it under section 49 of our Constitution. Everyone's got a story of how their little cousin got around the social media ban or how they didn't get kicked off at all. Even if the ban worked and kids under 16 all had their accounts taken away, they can still go on YouTube and watch brainrot shorts, and they can still go on Discord and get bullied and groomed. Consider the opening sentence in an article in WAtoday from January: Underage Snapchat users are verifying their accounts by scanning the faces of people who are decades older and of a different gender, exposing a major loophole in the Albanese government's signature policy. This is one of the many issues that will be considered during the two-year longitudinal survey of the social media ban. This is the very same survey that eSafety has said will cost nearly $1½ million. Why didn't they work out these problems before putting the ban in place? I mean, you wouldn't have to pay me $1.46 million to know that this wasn't going to work. It was obvious at the time that this would happen. This wasn't a considered, refined policy, and it wasn't even a policy made on the run. It was just the government having vibes to ban social media. It was an idea designed to prey on the fears of parents, even though any considered analysis threw up series of questions the government has never had to answer and has never had an answer to. So how did the government address this? It stopped the analysis from occurring. Like Alex Jones, this government is conducting information warfare to stymie this chamber's ability to scrutinise its activities. In his 2019 speech entitled 'Labor and democracy', the Prime Minister said: Building a better future for our country starts with a full-blooded assault on the culture of fear, censorship and denial that the Morrison Government is trying to foist upon us. The assault on the Morrison culture never happened; the culture was simply put under new management. 09:49 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia (): I rise to take note of the minister's attendance on this issue today. What we have seen since this government brought in the social media ban is virtually nothing else done. Virtually nothing else has been done to make sure our social media companies are providing safe places for not just young people but people of all ages, those who fall through the cracks, those that are legitimately all still online and those that access YouTube without having a logged-in account. That's how most kids are watching YouTube these days. Without an account, you can access anything you want. We've just had a landmark ruling in the United States today that has found that Meta and Google have deliberately used their platforms to target people with addictive algorithms that cause them harm. These big multibillion- and multitrillion-dollar companies are making massive profits off a product that they have designed to be deliberately harmful and addictive, just like poker machines. The gambling industry designed poker machines to be addictive, and that addiction is harmful. It is exactly the same with these big social media companies. These platforms are harmful and dangerous. Today in the United States, a jury has just ruled that they are so harmful that these big social media companies now need to pay and that they are liable. What is the Australian government going to do about this? Yes, they've brought in the social media ban, and that deals with knocking some young people offline, but it does nothing to force these platforms to provide safe spaces for their users—for the public. We are now in a world where social media is effectively a service that everybody uses. It's how people engage with government services, how they engage with access to information in their community, how they stay connected to their friends and family, how they trade and run businesses and how they connect with their educational institutions. If you're not on social media, it is very hard to be an active member of our community. There is no online or offline anymore; it is the same, and the rules need to be the same. There needs to be responsibility targeted and held at the feet of these big social media companies where, if they're going to engage and offer products and services, they must do it in a safe way. They've been making mega profits off harmful products, just like the tobacco industry and the gambling industry, and they need to be held to account. The Labor government, the Albanese government, promised well over 18 months ago that they would introduce rules and laws to force these companies to have a duty of care to the people who access their products. Eighteen months later and we've seen nothing from the Albanese government. The minister has been asleep at the wheel on this. These platforms and big tech bros continue to make money off Australians from products that they know are harmful and deliberately designed to be addictive. Doomscrolling is not by accident. Doomscrolling is a deliberate design feature. The tech companies have known this for years; they have sold their advertising and data access on that basis. It is part of their business model. That needs to be tackled head-on. We've got to have a government that has the guts to take on the tech companies properly and force them to have a duty of care to the Australian people. 09:54 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Well, I say shame on the government. After more than 100 days of the social media ban being in place, it is very clear that this policy is not delivering as promised. Families were assured that this would be a practical and enforceable safeguard, yet what we have seen is confusion for parents, uncertainty for platforms and real questions about how this works in practice. We know this is not working. We know this is a ban riddled with defects. We know that the implementation of the ban was flawed from the very beginning. Yet the government has not been upfront about what is working and what isn't. That starts with the really dubious claim made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications that 4.7 million social media accounts have been deactivated, restricted or closed. This claim was made in January, and the Prime Minister claimed that 4.7 million accounts were shut down within days of the social media ban being put in place. This claim is now under investigation by the eSafety Commissioner because the numbers don't stack up. We know that 550,000 accounts have been closed by Meta, 415,000 by Snap and around 250,000 by TikTok. That is a long way short of 4.7 million accounts. This number should have been corrected by the Prime Minister or by the communications minister, but we have heard nothing but silence. The coalition is determined that young Australians must be protected from harmful content online. This social media ban is not doing the job. The circumvention rates, based on my advice, are extremely high. I do take the point that the government has a bit of a whack-a-mole type of approach, where the government hasn't addressed a number of quite harmful platforms, because it doesn't seem to be concerned about what is actually online—the safety of material online, full stop. As we've just heard from Senator Hanson-Young, there has been a decision just handed down in New Mexico which has found Meta liable for exposing children to harm on its platforms. So we've got the social media ban, but the government is missing in action when it comes to the safety of children online. These platforms demonstrably are causing harm, yet the government has not taken the appropriate action to address this. What is the government going to do now after this decision has been handed down? This is a damning decision on Meta. This demonstrates that the whole design of its platform is to keep children addicted. Doomscrolling is a massive issue. One of the most concerning elements in this case is the role of algorithms and the fact that these systems actively shape what young people see and who they are exposed to online. Australians deserve transparency, and platforms should not be allowed to operate black-box algorithms when children's safety is at stake. Social media companies, the big tech platforms, must be held to a much higher standard, so I say to this hapless minister for communications: what is she doing to address the known harms on these platforms, including the damning decision that has just been handed down in the United States? Australians deserve to know. Young Australians deserve to know what the government is doing to fix the multiple number of defects with the social media ban, because currently as it stands this is simply not working, and young Australians are paying the price. (Time expired) 09:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It's nice that the coalition now wants some data on their policy. Let's remember who came up with the social media ban in the first place. It was a Peter Dutton policy, cheered in by News Corp, pushed aggressively by the coalition, picked up like some sort of food pulled out of the microwave reheated by Labor and then rushed through in a God almighty rush without any evidence base. You don't have to be a genius to work out that a smart, online 14-year-old is going to find a way around whatever social media ban comes out of an unplanned rush by Albanese and Dutton. I'd put my money on a smart online 14-year-old over Peter Dutton or Prime Minister Albanese any day of the week. What we want is the data. Show us what's actually happening. We don't want data that has been recycled out of the platforms. It's nice to hear the coalition in here, all hot under the collar, about the social media ban. It's good they've decided to pay some attention to it. Maybe they got a phone call from News Corp editors to tell them it was time to go again on this stuff. That's good. I'm glad they're finally asking for that, and we're actually supporting them in this to say: 'Let's get the data. Show us what's happened.' If the government really wants to stand behind their social media ban on kids, why are you refusing to produce these documents? Why are you refusing to produce the evidence? You're left with this absolutely firm conclusion that they knew there was never an evidence base to support it and that they know that the data they've got is showing that kids are smarter than them and are getting around it. My observation of young people is they have one account to show mum and dad, another account for one group of friends and another account for another group of friends. Tell me which of those has been banned. No doubt the mum-and-dad show-and-tell account has been banned, but show us what's happening to the reality on the ground with young people. Again—I'm just going to repeat it—my money's on young people being smarter, cannier, more online native than whatever policy was cooked up by the dregs of Peter Dutton through a News Corp editorial office and then implemented by a follow-the-crowd Albanese government. My money is on young people getting around that any day of the week. Why won't you show us the data? Why are we having this bizarre push? It's no doubt because the data is crazy embarrassing. It's showing what we all thought—that a half-baked plan that came out of some fettered dream of Peter Dutton was never actually going to be a way of keeping young people safe. You want to know how to keep young people safe? Implement a digital duty of care, an online duty of care. Hold platforms to account. Let people opt of toxic algorithms. That's how you keep young people safe. You make online safe for everybody, and it turns out that is going to make it a hell of a lot safer for young people. That's how you make young people safe online. Don't cut them off, isolate them socially and drive them to parts of the online world where there's even less supervision. That's how you make young people safe. You make online safer for all of us. But you didn't want to do that job because you didn't want to take on the big platforms. You didn't want to get them to have put an option in so people could opt out of their toxic algorithms. You didn't want to put in place laws that would hold big tech accountable. Why not? It comes back to what we keep seeing with this lot. You're scared of Donald Trump. You're scared that, if you actually put any regulations in place that would hold big tech to account, you're going to get some cranky phone call from Uncle Donald who's going to say: 'How dare you do this. How dare you act in the Australian national interest. You have to give priority access to major online US tech platforms, and, if you don't, I'll come and hunt you down.' That's what this is all about. You are just continuing to surrender any sense of what's right for Australians because you're scared of an attack from Donald Trump and his right wing, aggressive, America first—well I say Australians first, not Trump first. (Time expired) Question agreed to. BILLS 10 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 10

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026

Second Reading 10 10:05 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution in relation to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. The main point to make is that the nation's finances are no longer within the control of the government. We are now looking at a situation of an almost $40 billion deficit this year and a well over $100 billion deficit over the forward estimates. The reality is that public finances in Australia are completely broken. They're completely broken because the government has decided that it wants to spend at beyond pandemic levels on an ongoing basis—at 27 per cent of GDP—and, as a result, it has needed to find new tax revenues. The other point to make is that the government has completely debased the integrity of public finances with its commitment to significant off-budget funding. When you look at the overall position of the Commonwealth government, we can talk about the deficit, we can talk about the structural deficit, we can talk about the spending and we can talk about the overreliance on a small number—a shrinking number—of Australians for the tax base. But I think one of the biggest problems is this issue of integrity. This government has sought to provide all sorts of different boondoggle funds, like the Future Made in Australia fund, the housing fund, the rewiring fund and the reconstruction fund—I'm still not sure what we're reconstructing from—but all of these funds are off budget. None of them come into the main picture when the Treasurer hands down the budget. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when, at one level, you look at the budget deficit and you think, that's a pretty bad position—$40 billion this year, $100 billion over the forwards, at least, and we're approaching $1 trillion in debt. The budget itself, even in the way the government presents it, is extremely sick. But then, when you build all of the off-budget items into the picture, you realise that it is actually beyond sick and that we are never going to recover our position unless we are able to significantly rebalance the budget. I think it's reasonable to say that the Australian people are, rightly, frustrated with politicians. I think they're frustrated with the fact that the offerings they get at elections look more like bribes than proper stewardship of an economy. If you go back in time, I think it's reasonable to say that the Liberal Party in the early nineties, with its Fightback! program, was at that time very committed to putting together a program that was going to address some of these underlying structural problems. The question is: what is leadership of today going to do—the leadership of all parties—to arrest the decline the nation is in? You can measure the decline that we're in by virtue of looking at the absolutely busted budget. You can look at the way the Australian people are struggling because the government has failed on the supply side in relation to energy and in relation to housing. The fact that Mr Chalmers says he's read this book called Abundance—it can't be true, because if he'd read the book Abundance he would've discovered that supply-side reforms are necessary in this country if we're going to unleash the energy abundance that we need and the housing abundance that we need. We need to see a position where we get more of everything. We need to see more housing and more energy—all forms of energy—because we need to have more stuff. I think the Australian people are rightly frustrated. They look at the position that we are in as a nation, and they say: 'Well, I can't get a house. I can't get fuel in the car. The federal budget is stuffed and will never be fixed. I've got to pay higher taxes. Maybe I'll have to pay more taxes if Mr Chalmers—or Dr Chalmers or whatever he calls himself—wants to fiddle around with the tax settings.' I think that they're rightly frustrated. I understand that that leads to people thinking, 'The political system is broken, and so we're going to try and do something to shake it up because we can't get even basic stuff right.' I think the fact that a person on an average income really has no realistic prospect of being able to buy a house in some of the capital cities is hugely disappointing, frustrating and upsetting. People will feel anger about that. You've done the right thing. You've trained yourself as a tradesperson, or you've been to university. You've worked and you've saved, and you still can't make that happen. Then, beyond that, there's this current fuel crisis. I think this has completely exposed the frailties of the nation and the fact that we are so reliant here, at the bottom end of the supply chain, in the South Pacific, with an abundance of resources we haven't bothered to dig out or suck out of the ground. These are some of the reasons why people quite reasonably say, 'Why are we paying you people to go to Canberra and argue with one another and sometimes with yourselves?' I think that's a reasonable question. So the job for all of us in a debate on an appropriation bill around the quality of public finances is to reflect on that and to think, 'Are we doing everything we can to put forward the most ambitious program that we can muster?' And I think the answer is, invariably, no. I think the answer has been no. The government, although it has some well-meaning, nice people in it, effectively runs on the basis that the people that they're close to—the unions and the super funds and all the other people that they're mates with—write their policies for them and they say, 'This is a good idea; we'll do that.' But there's no broader vision about what they can do for the country. There doesn't appear to be any ambition. Dr Chalmers has been the Treasurer for four years. He gave a speech last week and said he'd done tax reform. This was one of the funniest speeches I'd ever heard. His idea of tax reform is bringing back bracket creep, increasing taxes on small business, fiddling around with Future Made in Australia, which is a boondoggle, and increasing the tax compliance burden. What tax reform has Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, done? What has he done? I'm none the wiser. I don't think anyone knows. Certainly he has said that he likes Paul Keating. I think Paul Keating did a lot of good things for this country. I think he was very brave and had ambition for this country. If Mr Chalmers wants to model himself on Mr Keating, he needs to study that former treasurer, who did some actual reform. He did some actual things. Yes, he was good at politics. I worry that, when he read Paul Keating's memoir, all he learnt was how to do the political spin. That's what I think happened. He read Paul Keating's memoir, and all he was able to retain was the political spin, not the economic reform. That is ultimately what the country is going to need if we are going to recover this position. In the spirit of a contribution to the appropriation bill debate, of course, the appropriation bills are the government's expenditure. There's no question that at 27 per cent of GDP, when we're already living in a country which has got a high tax burden on people in particular, the government is spending too much. So the question for all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives over the next couple of years as we get closer to the election is, 'Are members of the parliament going to be honest with the Australian people about the sustainability of public finances?' because, after four years of Labor, the budget trajectory is never going to recover. They have broken the budget. Public finances in Australia are stuffed, and that's why the high taxes have to be considered in the budget. The only way to get the country back to work on a sustainable basis is to also look at spending. I get that politicians are very scared about the idea that people won't vote for them if they say they're going to cut something, but this is lowest-common-denominator stuff—the fact that we don't have more means testing and that, in relation to programs that are available in Australia, we don't consider restricting them to Australian citizens. I think there are a lot of things that we can do to rein in spending, and I commend anyone who is prepared to make a serious policy contribution even if I don't agree with that, because I think that's the job of being a parliamentarian and a policymaker. I commend the member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, for at least doing something. She has done a terrible tax policy, but at least it is a tax policy, and it's more of a tax policy than the government has done in four years. We are living in a time of low ambition for our country, and you can see it in the budget trajectory, which is completely cactus, and in the quality of the tax debate. I mean, fair dinkum! You have people in this place who say, 'Well, we can fix the housing crisis with more taxes and we can fix the energy crisis with more taxes.' It's absolutely insane. People who are members of the Labor government who say they've read the book Abundance are lying, because that is against the grain of the supply-side theory that is expounded by Klein and Thompson in their book. Ultimately, it comes down to a pretty simple equation. How are we going to reduce the amount of public spending below 27 per cent of GDP? How are we going to have that honest conversation about how the country has its backside out of its pants and cannot afford to spend at this level on an ongoing basis? We cannot continue to run on the basis that our budget deficit will exceed $1 trillion. It will be $1 trillion very soon, and Dr Evil will not be here to save us. We'll have to bail our way out of this in some way. It is a tax on future generations. The younger people of today—those people who are under 40—should take notice. When we tick over to $1 trillion of debt this year under Labor, they should take notice. The younger people of Australia should be very aware. They should switch on and keep a close eye on this, because, when we tick over to $1 trillion of debt this year, that will be a tax on them. They will be paying higher taxes in the future unless we restrain spending and get back on track today. It's that simple. You also have to look at the broader question about the tax system very seriously, because the burden on people who are working is absolutely unbearable. The idea that the working person in Australia has to pay such a high degree of their ordinary salary and wages off to the taxman is absolutely soul destroying, and it cannot be sustained. It is a hard country to do business in and a hard country to be a worker in, unless we get serious about these facts around the sustainability of public spending, the broken tax system and the necessity of supply-side reform. If you want to fiddle around with the tax system, fine, but you have to do it on a basis of actually reducing the heaviest burdens on people and companies. We've got to be realistic. We are living in a market—in a world—where there is competition for capital. If people can mine things in other jurisdictions at a lower tax rate, they will, and that's where those jobs will go. If a company can build houses and make money out of it in another jurisdiction, they will. These are the facts. We cannot pretend that we're living in some socialist utopia where we can continue to tax the backside out of the country and effectively run programs which are unsustainable and unaffordable. These are the questions for Australian people to ask their parliamentarians: What ambition do they have for our country? Where do they see fixing public finances on the list of the priorities? Surely, we can do a better job than running a $40 billion deficit, $100 billion over the forwards and a never, never, never return to surplus which is only going to result in higher taxes on future generations. 10:20 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise to speak on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-26 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026. Collectively, these appropriation bills provide legislative authority for additional funding to the consolidated revenue fund for the government. Obviously, they are part of implementing the decisions of both the budget and MYEFO, and there's a significant amount of money attached to these bills. They seek approval of $12.5 billion in appropriations, including for ordinary and non-ordinary services and for parliamentary departments. Let's be clear, offering our support for these bills is the normal practice of the opposition when it comes to appropriation and supply bills. It doesn't mean to say that we agree with everything that is contained in these bills or the policies that have driven the need of these appropriations. As Senator Bragg has just quite articulately put on the record, we are at a stage in this country where the spending of government is completely out of control and is driving our economy to a place that is going to be a place where our children and their children are going to wear the consequences of the recklessness of this current government's attitude to taxation and to the economy. Since coming into government, this government has added $100 billion to the national debt, which is now heading towards $1 trillion. That's $1 trillion that's on the credit card. That's $1 trillion that is going to have to have the interest repaid on it. That is $1 trillion that future generations are going to have to wear the consequences of. As we sit here at the moment, with the instability that we're seeing in our domestic economy courtesy of the actions of this current government and with the added implications of a volatile international situation, we are in a very precarious position. Most other times when we've headed into times of uncertainty and times of crisis, there has been a buffer in the bank. There is no buffer in the bank because government has already spent it, and so we head into uncertain times—rising interest rates, global uncertainty, a fuel crisis that is still being denied by those opposite that is, quite frankly, impossible to deny when you drive around and want to fill your car up or when you speak to a farmer who is trying to fill the tractor up or get a fuel delivery onto their farm. It is not a crisis that is to be ignored. The point of these bills today is to provide additional funding to the government, and the point that we and the opposition will continue to make is that the fiscal management of this country is what should be the No. 1 objective policy priority of every government after keeping its citizens safe. That is the other job a government has to do—manage the economy in the best interests and for the best welfare outcomes for Australians. Spending growth at the moment is actually running at four times the growth of the economy. Anybody who has got any idea about economics knows that that is going to be a problem when it comes to stimulating inflation in the economy. This is the highest spending rate outside of a pandemic in over 40 years, so, quite frankly, right now, inflation in this country is too high, and there is only one place to lay the blame for that inflation being too high, and that is the high levels of government spending. Responsibility sits with the government. The ABS has confirmed, in the last 12 months to January 2026, inflation was at 3.8 per cent—and it's rising—with trimmed mean inflation at 3.4 per cent. Both these figures are well outside the band that is stated as an appropriate target by the Reserve Bank. The result of this is everyday Australians are seeing everything they rely on and everything that they have to pay for going up, such as the increasing cost of housing and the fact that we are now seeing a generation of Australians fearing they will never own their own home. Previous generations—my generation and generations before—have always almost taken for granted that, if you work hard, you will always be able to afford to buy your own home. That is not something that the younger generations feel anymore. There's an everyday immediacy when it comes to the cost of food going up, the cost of health care going up, the cost of insurance going up and quite frankly the incredible increase we've seen in the amount people are paying for their houses—those of us who are lucky enough to have been able to buy one. This is hurting everyday Australians, because the cost-of-living pressures are singularly the most impactful thing that is happening in the lives of everyday Australians right now. The government is refusing to accept, in everything it's saying, the fact that its actions are reducing the living standards of everyday Australians. It's really quite terrifying when you hear authoritative figures say that the next generation will be the first generation of Australians whose living standards will be worse than the previous generation since the Second World War. So every generation since the Second World War has been the beneficiary of productivity and growth from the responsibility of successive governments in managing the economy, but this next generation will be the first to inherit a worse living standard than the last. The other thing, too, is that we have seen an absolute propensity of the spending of this government to be very much focused on things that exist in terms of increasing the size of the government. We on this side of the chamber don't believe in bigger government; we believe in better government. We believe in a government that supports Australians getting ahead. We believe that Australians should not be bearing the burden of government policy. We believe Australians should be the beneficiary of government policy by having them be able to get ahead by working hard and being rewarded for what they do. This is not the policy of this government. One area I want to focus on in a little bit more detail is the absolute explosion of not just the costs in the healthcare sector but the accessibility and the implications of the policies of this government in terms of the outcomes of the health of Australians. There is absolutely no doubt when you speak to Australians that they are concerned about the cost and access to health care. We have seen, over recent years, an increasing level of concern about the accessibility and affordability of health care, and the result of that is that people are not seeking to engage with the healthcare system. They are saying they simply cannot afford to do so. There is absolutely no doubt that, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister tried to avoid his responsibility for the burden that he has placed on our healthcare system from successive policies by running around and telling Australians that the only thing they would need when they went to the doctor would be their Medicare card. Well, the lived experience of Australians is very, very different to that, because right now Australians who have out-of-pocket costs when they go to see their doctor are paying in excess of $50 every time. So it's never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor than it is right now. As I said, out-of-pocket costs are in excess of $50. That is higher than it has ever been before. This is forcing Australians to make the really hard decision as to whether they're going to see the doctor or put food on the table. They're choosing to put food on the table, which is a quite reasonable response, but as a result of that they are finding themselves getting sicker and sicker, and the result of that is they are entering into a health system at a much more acute stage of illness, which is where it is more expensive and why we are seeing such a burden being placed on our hospital system. When it comes to the increased incentives that have been put in place, we absolutely welcome anything that is able to get Australians more affordable and easier access to health care. But the reality is that we are not seeing a change on the ground. Then, when you have a look at the impact of the more acute stages at which people are entering into our healthcare system, we are also seeing our hospital system completely and utterly overburdened. We're seeing ramping around the country at the worst it has ever been. In my home state in South Australia last year, we saw the worst level of ramping that we have ever seen, double what it had previously been. Elective surgery waiting lists—we probably shouldn't use the term 'elective surgery'. These are surgeries that are essential; they're just not life saving. It could be somebody who has been living with chronic pain for many, many years. The wait time for elective surgeries in this country has completely and utterly blown out. That's before we even start talking about the aged-care system, where we see over 3,500 older Australians stuck in hospital beds because of the failure of this government in relation to preparing appropriately for aged care. We've seen private health premiums go up again. Next week, we will see an over four per cent increase in health premiums across the board for those Australians, those 15 million Australians, who choose to insure their health in the private system. That is going to be the biggest increase in over a decade. The most disturbing thing about that is what the likely implication is going to be for Australians in terms of their ability to maintain their private health insurance. It's their private health insurance and their access to the private health sector that take the pressure off our public health sector. We saw just recently the government having to chuck another $25 billion—$25 billion extra dollars—to the states and territories for their hospital systems because they are overburdened because of the policies of this federal government. We've seen spending on the PBS, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, at some of its lowest, lowest levels. We're seeing the government use cost-containment mechanisms at the moment by rationing care and access to health care to try and help their budget bottom line. This is an absolute indictment on this government, because, if you listen to what they say, everything is okay. I would say to Australians: don't listen to what the government says; actually look at what they are doing. What they are doing is sending you backwards. As I said, in the aged-care sector, we have seen some terrible, terrible changes. We've seen wait lists blow out from just on 28,000 people waiting for a homecare package to over 130,000 people as we sit here now, and that's not accounting for the over 100,000 people that are waiting to even be assessed for a package. We're seeing older Australians stuck in hospital beds because they can't get residential care or they can't get the homecare packages that would enable them to go home. We have seen wait times blow out. They got down to around three months, but we're now seeing 10, 11 and 12 months of waiting for aged-care packages. When they do get their aged-care packages from this government, eventually, they're receiving them at 60 per cent of the value that they had been assessed as needing. That means, for older Australians who have been assessed as needing a level of care, this government is giving them 60 per cent of the care that they have been assessed as needing. This is just another broken promise by this government—a broken promise to older Australians, who are having their care rationed by this government because the budget bottom line seems to be more important than the health and wellbeing of older Australians. To add insult to injury, we now find out that the government has introduced an algorithm to assess what kind of care older Australians are going to get, an algorithm that is proving to be throwing out some of the most unkind, unfair and terrible results for older Australians. We've seen people who have had a massive deterioration in their health and have sought to have their aged-care packages reassessed for greater support have their packages decreased and, in some instances, removed altogether, at the whim of a robot. So, right now, we have got a government who is more focused on headlines and spin and not on delivering. We see a government that's more worried about their budget bottom line than about Australians who have got health challenges, particularly older Australians, who are assessed as needing care and have been denied it because of the rationing of care by this government. In health and aged care, this is a national crisis of the government's own making. It is their responsibility, and they will be held to account by the Australian public. To use older Australians and the access to care of older Australians as a budgetary tool, I think, has got to be one of the cruellest actions I've ever seen of any government ever. These bills here today highlight the scale of government spending and the consequences of poor fiscal discipline. Whilst I said we will be supporting these bills, as is practice, it goes no way towards suggesting that we support the actions of this government. 10:35 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. Appropriation bills, for those listening along to this debate, are very important bills when it comes to the framing of a government's priority and agenda. As with previous appropriation bills from this government, unfortunately what we see here again is a government that has its agenda and its priorities all wrong. It's a government that has not been upfront with the Australian people for four years. We have seen over that period 14 interest rate rises. We have seen over that period a government that has been using its monetary policy and its fiscal policy in direct contradiction to the monetary policy outcomes sought by the Reserve Bank. We've had a government that's been pouring money into the economy at a time when the Reserve Bank has been seeking to put downward pressure on inflation. As we enter this period of global turmoil, where inflation is on the rise, Australians should absolutely always remember that inflation was already trending up before the conflict in Iran started to affect the markets. Inflation was well above the Reserve Bank's band and was trending upwards. So we had a government that was pouring money into the economy, fuelling inflation and fuelling interest rate rises, with no serious plan on how to rein in its own spending. In fact, when we question the government on its spending priorities, all the government is capable of saying is, 'Well, what would you cut?' I'm sorry, Labor, but you are in government. It's actually up to you to determine your priorities and determine how to manage the Australian economy to the benefit of Australian families, to the benefit of Australian small businesses and to the benefit of the Australian economy as a whole. Labor simply cannot be upfront with the Australian people in that regard. The economy is fundamentally weak, and that's what we now see with the pressure being put on it by external events. External events happen. Global shocks happen. A good government prepares and makes the Australian economy resilient in the face of those events. A good government prepares and makes sure our spending is sensible, contained and responsible. A good government doesn't come into this place day after day, when it is bleedingly obvious to every Australian that there are issues in our fuel supply market, and say, 'There's nothing to see here.' A good government, when it recalls diplomats' families from the Middle East on 25 February, starts to think about the impact a potential conflict in the Middle East could have on Australia. One of the blindingly obvious things, even well before 25 February, was that an outbreak of conflict in the Middle East would have an impact on the availability and the price of fuel, both diesel and unleaded petrol. Yet, day after day in this place, when asking the minister representing the minister for energy, we heard the same thing: 'There's nothing to see here. The opposition is merely stoking fear. The opposition is encouraging panic buying.' Australians were blamed. The government blamed Australians for panic buying. Well, I'm sorry, but, if my business runs on diesel, then it is not panic buying to try and protect my business by filling up a tank. If I'm a farmer in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia and if my business is getting the seed in the ground this year to ensure that I actually have cashflow, that is not panic buying. If my business is driving, for whatever reason—and many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Australians rely on driving for their income—and if I decide to fill up my tank and perhaps even have a little bit of reserve on hand, that is not panic buying. That is risk management. Those are entirely sensible decisions that businesses and individuals are making for their business and their family, given the global situation, given it was bleedingly obvious that there was an issue coming with the Australian fuel supply and given that the government was asleep at the wheel, sitting on its hands, doing absolutely nothing—in fact, saying, 'There is nothing to see here.' How is it possible that we had a minister who, for so many days in the House of Representatives and in being represented here, effectively said, 'There is no issue'? Well, that simply wasn't the case, and it was very obvious that it wasn't the case. This shock—and, yes, there are factors outside this government's control. I'm more than happy to concede that. Every Australian is more than happy to concede that. But it came in the face of a government that had bad priorities and was overseeing a weak economy where inflation was already on the rise, where interest rates were already on the rise. The government, the Labor government, did not prepare the economy. Fuel is so fundamental, particularly diesel, to the Australian economy, whether you want to talk about the mining industry in my home state of WA, the agriculture industry in my home state of WA or whether you want to talk about filling up the supermarkets, whether you want to talk about moving goods back and forth across the Nullarbor, which is very important. Diesel makes Australia run. It is literally required by every single industry in Australia. Without diesel, Australia stops. So the first obligation of the government in the circumstance where it is obvious that there is a risk of a conflict in the Middle East is to ensure that requirement for diesel is maintained and strengthened, and there is absolutely no evidence on the table that this government did a thing to strengthen and increase our reserves in the face of an imminent shock. Australians are hurting as a result. In the latest release of information something like 500 petrol stations across Australia have run out of at least one type of fuel. Obviously, that is one sort of pain. The other sort of pain is, if you are a business reliant on fuel to run, then you are now paying over $3 for a litre of diesel. I have been speaking to an earthmoving contractor in the south of Western Australia regularly over the past few weeks. His business runs on diesel. If he cannot get diesel, then his business will stop. He will generate no income. He will have no income to pay his employees. Luckily, overnight, he did get some fuel to keep going. Literally, he was down to his last day of fuel in his machinery, and last night, thank goodness, he did get some fuel to keep people on the job, to keep people working in this country, to keep his machinery moving. That's great news. The difficult thing—the very, very difficult thing—for his business is that, rather than the around $1.80 or $1.90 a litre that he was hoping to pay for that diesel, he was paying over $3 a litre for that diesel. Again, this is a business where—as so many businesses do in Australia—energy input costs are a key input to the business and are a key cost to the business. You now see the economics of this particular business, as with so many businesses, are fundamentally altered by the current situation. If you are paying $3 or $3.10 a litre for diesel, the economics of earth moving are vastly different. He still has employees to pay. He still has insurance to pay. He still has maintenance on his vehicles to pay for, and one of his key input costs has gone through the roof, and that's why, from his point of view, he would have liked to have seen a government that was much more proactively responsive to the risk of this when it was very, very clear—people have been talking about the risk of this oil shock if something happened in the Middle East. We've seen it before. We've seen it so many times before. When there is conflict in the Middle East, there is an oil price shock. Everybody knows that's a risk. We've got Australians hurting. I've spoken to so many farmers over the last few weeks who are worried about how they are going to manage their season. Seeding is underway in Western Australia, and that is proceeding, and that is good, but the lack of certainty, particularly around fertiliser, is now becoming a very, very serious concern in terms of the particular application of nitrogen through the season. We have risks to overall yields. Western Australia has done an amazing job in terms of yields over the past four years—three crops in excess of 20 million tonnes; three record crops over four years. When I worked in the grains industry back in 2009 and 2010, an average crop in Western Australia was considered 10 or 11 million tonnes. Now, we've had three crops over 20 million tonnes—one of them 26 million tonnes—in the last few years. That is extraordinary efficiency and extraordinary productivity gain from our farming sector. Yet, this year, farmers are completely uncertain as to the ability to generate income and their ability to get key inputs, like fuel and fertiliser, and, therefore, their ability to feed the world is under question, because that's what the grain farmers of Western Australia do. Ninety-five per cent of the Western Australian grains crop is exported to help feed the world. It is a key part of so many international supply chains, and I have spoken to so many farmers who are dreadfully worried about the year ahead. And what did they hear from this government? Week after week, we sat in this place, we asked questions about the fuel situation, and we heard that there were no issues at all. This is a government that has lost control. It had no plan. It is now racing around trying to formulate one. It is a government that has let down the Australian people. 10:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In accordance with the arrangements made with the whips of the major parties, I seek leave to continue my remarks, and I express my regret that I wasn't here at the start of the debate. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I'll continue my speech from the other night. Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department, plus the net zero reporting, government grants to industry and academia to research this made-up problem. It really is a fabricated nonproblem; a monstrous, calamitous fabrication that is costing the Australian people dearly. Some of these grants are substantial, including $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Authority to counter the effects of climate change. I'll talk more about that in a minute. The further we get into the pointless, disastrous 'transition', the more that the burden of funding of these measures will fall on the taxpayer through direct payments, loans and sovereign guarantees, not to mention the inefficiencies—sorry, Siri is trying to talk to me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Siri doesn't have the call, Senator Roberts! Senator ROBERTS 266524 I'll pay that one! Senator Cox 296215 You were caught out at estimates doing that. Come on, now. Senator ROBERTS 266524 You've got a fertile imagination. Conspiracy theorist, is it? These measures will cost so much in the years ahead that, ultimately, the government of the day will be faced with a choice of social security, free health and education or saving the planet from a natural trace atmospheric gas that's essential to all life on earth. One Nation does not worship the sky god of warming. We know the climate varies naturally and inherently and that nothing in the current data suggests the variation is outside of normal cycles. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order! Senator ROBERTS 266524 We have 24,000 datasets from around the world, including CSIRO and BOM, and they prove no change in climate at all, just natural, inherent variation superimposed on cycles. A One Nation government will terminate net zero measures and withdraw from international agreements which provide the heads of power the requirement on our government to spend this money—not necessary. We will immediately suspend all government activity associated with net zero and review all expenditure and loans to see what can be clawed back legitimately under the contract terms. I suspect noncompliance with contract requirements—especially around supply agreements—is widespread, so it shouldn't be too difficult. We will terminate all ongoing subsidies where that option is available under the contract, and we will renegotiate contracts where it's not. This will save around $10 billion a year in recurring expenditure, which we will put towards eliminating the deficit—$10 billion taken out of this year's budget figures. I foreshadow my amendment No. 3662 in the committee stage to return these bills to the Treasury to have net zero spending removed and ask for the Senate's support. It's time to call out this parasitic net zero nonsense and get back to the real business of government: making people's lives better, not harder, as net zero measures currently do. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Just before you resume your seat, Senator Roberts, it would assist the Senate if you would move your motion. I believe it has been circulated as a second reading amendment. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I move: Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after amendments are circulated removing all funding for net zero measures and the administration of net zero measures". 10:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank all senators for their contribution and commend these bills to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:57]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

5 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Whitten, T. 40 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Collins, J. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:01 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the bills be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [11:01]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 NOES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

Third Reading 18 11:04 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That these bills be now read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the bills be read a third time.

The Senate divided. [11:05]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. 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. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 NOES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 18

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026

Second Reading 18 11:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I rise today to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The opposition will not oppose the bill. However, we do hold concerns on some aspects of the bill which is before us today. The coalition has always taken the view that Australia must maintain a strong, fair and sustainable social security system as a safety net for all Australians. Few countries in the world provide the same level of support as Australia for people who are out of work, facing hardship or experiencing family breakdown, and that's something Australians, I think, should all be extremely proud of. However, we must also never lose sight of the fundamental truth that our social security system is a safety net; it is not a bottomless resource. It's built on the sacrifice of millions of hardworking Australian taxpayers. It exists because Australians go to work, run small businesses, invest, take risks and contribute to the national economy. We therefore have a responsibility to manage this system carefully, responsibly and through responsible and disciplined economic management. We have a responsibility, as well, to future generations, who will be left to shoulder the long-term fiscal consequences of the decisions that we make in this place today. At its core, a well-designed income support system must provide a robust and sustainable safety net. It must protect the most vulnerable, it must support people through genuine periods of hardship and it must enable pathways to independence and self-reliance. Our focus should always be on helping more Australians move into work and contribute to the strengthening of our economy, not on keeping people permanently connected to our welfare system. Our welfare system must be fit for purpose today and properly equipped to meet the challenges of tomorrow. While in government, the coalition demonstrated that it is possible to strengthen the safety net while managing the public finances responsibly. Through disciplined economic management, the coalition delivered the largest permanent increase to JobSeeker income support payments at that time. In April 2021, the coalition increased working-age payment rates, including the JobSeeker payment, by $50 a fortnight and permanently increased the income-free area to $150 per fortnight. These changes were specifically designed to support jobseekers as they secured employment and re-entered the workforce. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the coalition government also provided $32 billion in emergency support payments to protect Australians through an unprecedented economic shock. That support was delivered quickly, responsibly and at scale, while maintaining a clear focus on recovery and economic participation and being temporary. The coalition also recognises the integral role that the Child Support Scheme plays when families have a breakdown. Child support exists for one reason: to ensure that, no matter where they live or with whom they live, children affected by family breakdowns remain financially secure. The coalition makes no apology for supporting strong and, where necessary, tough measures to ensure that child support is paid. When parents shirk their responsibilities, they are not just hurting the system; they are depriving their own children of financial support that helps them live a better life. At the same time, we recognise that most parents do the right thing and meet their obligations. Since the scheme was introduced in 1998, more than $33 billion in child support payments has been transferred through the government scheme. When parents do not pay their child support on time, the impact is real and immediate. It affects the financial security of single parents and their children. For that reason, the coalition will always support practical measures that improve the administration of the Child Support Scheme and strengthen its compliance. Turning to the bill before the chamber at the moment, this legislation is technical in nature and consists of three schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to clarify and validate child support assessment arrangements. Part 1 of schedule 1 adjusts when new child support periods start after updated tax information becomes available. In some circumstances, commencement will be delayed by an additional month. This is intended to help parents manage financial challenges that arise from updated income information. Part 2 of schedule 1 confirms that individuals who have less than 35 per cent care of a child, whether they are a parent or a non-parent career, are not entitled to receive child support. Importantly, this applies retrospectively from 1 July 2008 while validating past decisions and leaving historic assessments unchanged. This schedule is designed to clarify technical legal aspects of the current operation of the Child Support Scheme. The coalition recognises that schedule 1 also addresses unintended consequences arising from previous legislative amendments made under both Labor and coalition governments. It restores the original policy intent of the child support framework. In particular, it clarifies that a parent who provides less than 35 per cent of care of a child is not entitled to receive child support, and this ensures that eligibility settings accurately reflect actual levels of care and responsibility. Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act to provide clear legal authority for urgent payments to eligible recipients outside of the normal fortnightly payment cycle. This schedule establishes a legislative framework for administering urgent payments. It abolishes the current limit of two urgent payments per year and introduces safeguards designed to ensure that welfare recipients have sufficient funds to enable them to cover regular expenses on their usual payment day. It is important to note that urgent payments are not additional assistance. Urgent payments allow eligible recipients to access a portion of their regular fortnightly entitlement in advance, in circumstances of exceptional and unforeseen financial hardship. The coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework for these payments. How— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. You'll be in continuation. It being 11.15, we'll move to other business. NOTICES 19 NOTICES Presentation 19 Presentation 21 11:15 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I give notice that on the next day of sitting I will introduce a bill that will allow individuals to choose what is in their social media feeds—to control their algorithms. That bill will be debated in this chamber, and the government will have to act. COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:16 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I present the fourth report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee REPORT NO. 4 OF 2026 26 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 Cadell (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. 4 OF 2026 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 25 March 2026 at 7.10 pm. 2. The committee recommends that the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee. 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 Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 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 Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025 (No. 2) 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 (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 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 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026 Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026 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 Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026 Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026 Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. (Tony Sheldon) Chair 25 March 2026 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 11 March 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: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March—April 2026 Possible reporting date: 1 MAY 2026 (signed) Wendy Askew 15 Senator GROGAN 296331 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add ", and the following bills not be referred to committees: (a) Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026; (b) Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026; and (c) Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020". 11:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add: ", and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee. 11:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales At the request of Senator McKim, I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of: (a) the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2026; (b) the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 August 2026; (c) the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020, the bill be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 June 2026; and (d) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2026". Isn't this extraordinary? We are now four weeks into your war of choice—the Labor, One Nation and Liberal war of choice—in the Middle East, the war of choice that is being felt across the Middle East with thousands of deaths and wide-scale destruction. It is being felt across the world with economic chaos, and it's being felt in homes across this country. Australians across this country right now are paying the price for Labor, the coalition and One Nation—the war parties—championing this war of choice by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, and you don't even have the guts to have a hearing into a war powers bill that would give the parliament and the Australian public a say before you go into your next disastrous US forever war. Let's be clear about what's behind this. Australians across the country are worried about whether they're going to be able to fill up their petrol tanks. They're worried about the cost of it. They are desperately concerned about what it means for their jobs. They are worried about whether, over Easter, they will be able to go down and visit family and friends, because they may not be able to fill up their petrol tanks to get back. They are worried about the world spiralling into chaos. They're deeply concerned about the deaths they're seeing in the Middle East. And do you know whose interests the Albanese Labor government took into account? No doubt there was a phone call between the Prime Minister and Donald Trump. I wonder if they mentioned Donald Trump's thousands and thousands of mentions in the Epstein files in that phone call. Whose national interest is being advanced here? It is not the interests of the Australian people. The Albanese government is betraying the Australian people because they're siding with Donald Trump, a mate of Jeffrey Epstein. They're siding with Benjamin Netanyahu, who's running a war to get re-elected. They're putting the interests of those two vile men ahead of the interests of Australians. They're throwing our economy into chaos. They're throwing people out of work. They're doing this all because the Labor Party, One Nation and the coalition put the interests of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the interests of the Australian people, who elected them to this place not to serve the interests of the one per cent, not to serve the interests of Donald Trump and not to serve the interests of Bejamin Netanyahu. You're meant to be serving the interests of the Australian people. Is it any wonder you don't want them to have a say on whether we go to war, because you're going to war for the one per cent. You're going to war for the fossil fuel companies, who are making record profits. You're going to war for Donald Trump and the Epstein class. You're going to war for Benjamin Netanyahu so he can get re-elected in Israel. And you do not give a rat's about the interests of the Australian people. It is an obscene betrayal that we are seeing. When people across the country are wondering if they're going to be able to afford to fill up their car, wondering if their job is going to be secure, wondering why this is happening to them, the answer is: because Labor has a phone call with Donald Trump, where Prime Minister Albanese gets on the phone with Donald Trump and says, 'How can we help? How can we support you?' because Donald Trump is of more interest—keeping him happy, making sure he doesn't get angry and maybe cancels AUKUS or maybe says mean things about us. That's who you put ahead of the Australian people. So is it any wonder you—the three war parties—are joining up now to prevent this bill, which, if it got through, would make sure the parliament had to have a say before you joined the next Trump war? Is it any wonder we're seeing the three war parties join up to vote against it? I see you at different times wrapping yourself in the Australian flag and pretending you care about Australia. Why don't you just wrap yourselves in the US flag, wrap yourselves in whatever present Benjamin Netanyahu gives you or wrap yourselves up in whatever the one per cent are giving you to betray the country like this? It is an obscene betrayal of ordinary Australians because you are frightened of Donald Trump—or maybe actually it's worse than that: you identify with him; you identify with the one per cent who he supports; you identify with the fossil fuel companies that are making record profits. It is appalling how you betray this country. (Time expired) 11:22 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania How extraordinary is it that, a matter of weeks after Labor joined Australia into the war on Iran, at the behest of the war criminals Trump and Netanyahu—the illegal war against Iran that Australia is now fighting, on the side of the war criminals and the perpetrators—all the war parties in this place, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and One Nation, are colluding to prevent a bill from just going to an inquiry? It's a bill that would actually require this parliament to decide, the next time Labor wants to lead us into another disastrous US led forever war. You don't want the bill that would allow this parliament, the democratically elected representatives of the Australian people, to have the say about whether or not this country should go to war. This is a war that has resulted in thousands of people dying—women, children, men and everyone in between—tens of thousands being injured and many, many, many hundreds of thousands, well north of a million, being displaced from their homes in places like the south of Lebanon. This is a war that Labor, in the most cavalier way, signed this country up to, because Donald Trump—under pressure from the Zionists and from the war criminal Netanyahu, and in an attempt to distract from his complicity in the paedophilia of Jeffrey Epstein—launched this war, illegally, against the people of Iran. What an absolute disgrace! And how far the Labor Party has fallen from where it stood, just a matter of a couple of decades ago, on the Iraq war. I also want to talk about the referral that the Greens are attempting to deliver through this amendment of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill. I want to start by reflecting on the economic impacts of this war. Make no mistake, senators: there are no circumstances, even with a massively unlikely immediate ceasefire, where the economic impacts of this war will not continue for some time. And that is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is a global economic black-swan event that will change the nature of international geopolitics and the global economy forever. That is how serious the situation is. And it is time for Labor to come to grips with the impacts of this war, which they were one of the first governments in the world out of the blocks to say they thought was a terrific idea. This is Labor's war, and the impacts of this war on everyday Australians are the impacts Labor has delivered. One of those impacts is petrol prices and petrol availability. It is the absolute barbecue stopper of an issue that is discussed everywhere you go in this country at the moment, whether you're picking the kids up from school, leaning on your back fence talking to a neighbour, down at the pub, in a place of worship or in the supermarket. Everyone is talking about it. And what's Labor doing to stop petrol companies price gouging? Nothing, because their bill, which they say will stop petrol companies price gouging, actually will not do that. It won't do that. Labor knows it won't do that, and Labor knows there are no anti-price-gouging provisions in competition and consumer law in Australia, because last year they moved to create anti-price-gouging provisions only for the supermarket sector and only after the Greens had campaigned for 18 months to get them to do that. Labor is misleading the Australian people, and, instead of being honest, they are being deceptive and they don't want to be caught out. 11:27 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak in support of the comments made by my colleagues Senator Shoebridge and Senator McKim. The question has to be asked: what are the government and the coalition afraid of in letting the public have a bill, to give them a say about whether or not this country goes to war, be interrogated? Are you afraid that experts are going to come and say that the parliament should actually debate this? If you were so confident in your position, then you'd be happy for this to go to an inquiry. So the question for the Australian public is: what are the government and the opposition wanting to keep secret about the decisions that they are making, to put Australian troops in harm's way, to make the Australian public less safe, to tie us to a government that is led by a fascist maniac? You cannot take any of the statements that the President of the United States, Trump, has made since this illegal war started and have any level of confidence that we should have been dragged into this unlawful and illegal war. Every time I hear that man speak, I am horrified. Every time other Australians hear him speak, they are horrified. This is the government and the military that you have tied us to. At least have the courage to be upfront and allow an open debate about whether this parliament should have a say in whether our country is dragged into war. At least have the courage to send this bill to an inquiry so that people can see, very clearly and plainly, the evidence as to whether this should happen or not. I also want to support Senator McKim's comments about the smoke and mirrors around the government claiming that they are protecting people from price gouging on fuel. This is a government full of smoke and mirrors. Yesterday we had the ministerial statement on better and fairer schools. This government loves to claim that they'll fully fund our public schools, but everybody knows that's not going to happen, even by 2034, but they're still out there saying it. And now they're out there telling people that they're going to protect them from price gouging when they're actually not. If you're not going to do something then be honest with the public about what you are doing. People have a right to know what is actually happening. Over the top of this we're being drowned by mis- and disinformation, and the approach that you take only makes that worse. This war started with the bombing of a school by the United States. More than 150 young schoolgirls died. And last night in the chamber, both the government and the opposition stood up in response to the better and fairer schools ministerial statement and said how much they value our young people. Well every war—every war—is a war on children. If the major parties in this place care so much about young people, if they really care, then they would be doing everything in their power to make the bombs stop. You would not cheer them on from the get-go. You would be using every diplomatic lever. You would stop sending arms to Israel, which you continue to do. Every war is a war on children, and the major parties and One Nation in this place are continuing to perpetuate that war rather than doing every single thing in their power to bring peace and make the bombs stop. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Wong, P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:43 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Wong, P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

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

NOTICES 27 NOTICES Postponement 27 11:46 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. COMMITTEES 27 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 27 11:46 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. DOCUMENTS 27 DOCUMENTS Housing 27 Order for the Production of Documents 27 11:46 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Housing has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 208, agreed to on 3 November 2025, relating to the Australian Government 5% deposit scheme; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on 14 April 2026. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 395, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dolega, J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Mulholland, C. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. 8 PAIRS Blyth, L. O'Neill, D. M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Darmanin, L. Hume, J. McCarthy, M. Lambie, J. Whiteaker, E. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. G. Dowling, R.

Question agreed to.

National Anti-Racism Framework 28 Order for the Production of Documents 28 11:53 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister representing the Prime Minister has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 356, agreed to on 4 March 2026, relating to the National Anti-Racism Framework; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to comply with the order by no later than 5 pm on 30 March 2026. 11:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government tabled the response to this order this morning, and a copy has been provided to the senator. On that basis, the government opposes the motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 456, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Gallagher ING I seek leave to call off the division. I'm happy to have the government's opposition to that motion recorded. Leave granted; question agreed to. Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:54 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister representing the Prime Minister has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 357, agreed to on 4 March 2026, relating to the Race Discrimination Commissioner; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to comply with the order by no later than 5 pm on 30 March 2026. 11:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING It is similar to the one for the last motion. The government has tabled the response to this order this morning, and a copy has been provided to the senator. On that basis, the government opposes the motion. Question agreed to. Accenture Australia 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:55 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 9 April 2026: (a) 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 Minister for Climate Change and Energy and/or his office, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Australian Climate Service in relation to the awarding of a $16 million contract to Accenture Australia with contract notice ID CN4226159; and (b) copies of all value for money assessments conducted in relation to the bid made by Accenture Australia for the contract referred to in paragraph (a). Question agreed to. National Anti-Racism Framework 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:56 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 9.30 am on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages and/or correspondence relating to the National Anti-Racism Framework from 26 November 2024 to 25 March 2026, between the Attorney-General and/or her office, including the previous Attorney-General within this period and/or his office, and the Race Discrimination Commission and/or the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. Question agreed to. Home Guarantee Scheme 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:56 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 460. Senator McKim JKM Nothing's been circulated. Could Senator Askew just go through the amendments for the benefit of the chamber, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand it's been circulated, Senator McKim. Why don't we come back to it and give you an opportunity to have a look at it? Housing Australia 30 Order for the Production of Documents 30 11:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 371, relating to Housing Australia staff surveys, required the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, and (ii) the order has not been complied with; (b) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 30 March 2026; and (c) if the order has still not been fully complied with by midday on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the Tuesday of each sitting week, starting with, Tuesday, 12 May 2026, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 11:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will be opposing this motion. This order seeks documents relating to surveys of Housing Australia staff. Despite the fact that the Senate's order gave a deadline some four hours before the motion was even agreed to, I'm happy to advise that documents will be produced in response to this order imminently.

The Senate divided. [11:59]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Whitten, T. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 9 PAIRS Blyth, L. O'Neill, D. M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Collins, J. Walker, C. Duniam, J. R. Darmanin, L. Hume, J. McCarthy, M. Lambie, J. Whiteaker, E. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. G. Dowling, R.

Question negatived.

Department of the Treasury, Home Guarantee Scheme 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 12:02 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 460. Leave granted. Senator ASKEW 281558 I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) on 24 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 27, relating to Treasury advice concerning first home buyers, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday, on Monday, 28 July 2025, (ii) on 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 119, relating to the Home Guarantee Scheme, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Tuesday, 2 September 2025, (iii) since those orders were agreed to, the Senate has agreed to a further 7 motions concerning the minister's failure to comply with the orders, rejected a public interest immunity claim raised by the Minister for Housing and required a Ministerto attend the Senate to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders on three separate occasions, (iv) most recently, on 25 March 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing attended the Senate to provide a second explanation of the failure to comply with order for the production of documents no. 119or to respond in full to the order, (v) the additional explanation provided by the Minister was not satisfactory and did not address the minister's failure to comply with the order, and (vi) the orders have still not been fully complied with; and (b) the Minister representing the Minister for Housing be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on Tuesday, 31 March 2026, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the orders or to respond in full to the orders , and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. As listed on pages 7 and 8 of today's Notice Paper 12:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will be opposing this motion and the amendments that have been circulated. Orders 27 and 119 are for entirely different documents. The attempt to link them together in one motion is a poor attempt from Senator Bragg, who has realised four months later that he got his own OPDs mixed up. In response to order 119, the government has already provided exactly what Senator Bragg asked for. Senator Bragg continues to move compliance motions in relation to OPD 119, an order that specifically seeks 'any correspondence or documents relating to modelling done by the Treasury regarding the contingent liability' of the Home Guarantee Scheme. That modelling is laid out for him in the documents already produced. I'm happy to provide him with a copy of his own motion if he doesn't understand. Order 119 was not for home price impact modelling. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 460 standing in the name of Senator Bragg, moved and amended by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whitten, T. 20 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dolega, J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Mulholland, C. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Whiteaker, E. 9 PAIRS Blyth, L. O'Neill, D. M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Collins, J. Walker, C. Duniam, J. R. Darmanin, L. Hume, J. McCarthy, M. Lambie, J. Walsh, J. C. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. G. Dowling, R.

Question agreed to.

Home Guarantee Scheme 33 Order for the Production of Documents 33 12:07 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 372, relating to users accessing the Home Guarantee Scheme, required the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by midday on Thursday, 5 March 2026, and (ii) the order has not been complied with; (b) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 30 March 2026; and (c) if the order has still not been fully complied with by midday on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the Tuesday of each sitting week, starting with, Tuesday, 12 May 2026, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 12:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will be opposing this motion. This order seeks aggregate data of users accessing the Home Guarantee Scheme since 1 October 2024. While the motion as agreed to by the Senate gave a period of less than 24 hours to produce more than a year's worth of data for about 230,000 Australians—including age brackets, individual income, household income, occupation group, property purchase prices, single or joint borrower status and loan-to-value ratio—I'm happy to advise the documents relating to this order have been tabled this morning. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 462 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Whitten, T. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 9 PAIRS Blyth, L. O'Neill, D. M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Collins, J. Walker, C. Duniam, J. R. Darmanin, L. Hume, J. McCarthy, M. Lambie, J. Walsh, J. C. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. G. Dowling, R.

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 34 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 34 Reference 34 12:12 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I will continue my speech on this motion from Senator Bragg. I am trying to recall where I finished up yesterday. The key is that we need some scrutiny on the Housing Australia Future Fund. We need some scrutiny on the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, on the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and on the National Housing Accord facility. This is a government that loves to have a slogan, a title—a three-word title in particular. They love their 'Home Guarantee Scheme'. They love these things! There's 'capacity building' and 'Help to Buy'. That's another three-word slogan from this government. They put these schemes out there one after the other after the other and leverage off taxpayer dollars, often off budget, and this requires a level of scrutiny. There is scrutiny available through the estimates process, and Senator Bragg has certainly prosecuted that very well indeed. But it does require a level of scrutiny in this place, because we need to confront this raft of housing programs, which, quite frankly, have not delivered what the government promised. They have not delivered the houses on the ground. As I said yesterday, the Home Guarantee Scheme, in particular, needs examination in the current market, where we have prices rising very rapidly, young people being effectively encouraged into the market with the five per cent deposit scheme, house prices potentially falling and interest rates rising. They're actually worse off than they would have been without this government's program. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 35 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 35 12:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That: (a) following question time and the reporting of a message from the House of Representatives relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 the bill have precedence over all other business until determined; (b) contributions on the bill be limited to no more than 5 minutes per speaker; (c) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 4 pm; (d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bill; and (e) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142. Question agreed to. BILLS 35 BILLS Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 35

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026

Second Reading 35 12:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I wish to continue with my remarks on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. As I was saying, the coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework to ensure that payments are being received appropriately, however we have questions on how the removal of an annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will exist to prevent people from a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship. The coalition welcomes measures such as access to financial counselling, social work services and alternative payment services including Centrepay. We are concerned however that removing the annual cap on urgent payment requests risks encouraging greater reliance on what was previously a limited and tightly controlled program. Without effective safeguards, this change may deepen financial distress rather than relieve it. We cannot consider these changes to urgent payments in isolation from the broader economic environment in which Australians are currently living. Under this Albanese government, Australians are paying more for everything. Insurance costs have increased by 39 per cent. Energy costs are up by 38 per cent. Rent is up by 22 per cent. Health costs are up by 18 per cent if you can get in. Education costs are up 17 per cent, and food costs are up 16 per cent. These are not discretionary or optional expenses. These are not luxuries. These are fundamental costs of everyday life that all Australians use daily. Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may be increasingly relying on urgent payments and other emergency measures simply to get by. We know, troublingly, that in 2024-25 alone 440,000 social security payment recipients were granted approximately one million urgent payments. That figure alone should prompt serious reflection by the Albanese government about the impact on Australians from its failed economic policies. Australians are hurting, and Labor has no viable plan to change that. This impact should lead to serious consideration of whether urgent payments are being used to fuel the systemic gaps in financial stability rather than serving their intended purpose as an emergency measure. As highlighted in the government's own explanatory memorandum for this bill, urgent payments are primarily accessed by vulnerable people. Of all recipients of urgent payments, 45 per cent are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people even though only around six per cent of all income support recipients identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. With this evidence of daily struggle, it is clear that closing the gap is also becoming out of reach. This raises serious and legitimate questions about how these changes will operate in practice, particularly in vulnerable and remote communities. The government must explain what concrete measures it has implemented to prevent urgent payments from being exploited or diverted towards harmful activities, including gambling and excessive alcohol consumption, especially in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It must also explain how it will ensure that the promised support, including financial counselling and access to social work service, will be available to all Australians who need them, regardless of where they live. The coalition calls on the government to guarantee that the changes in this bill will not have a negative impact on our most vulnerable Australians, particularly those living in rural and remote communities. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to clarify how employment income is attributed when calculating a person's rate of social security payment. It expressly provides that income attribution rules may apply to the attribute employment income paid to the social security recipient or their partner for the purposes of working out the recipient's rate of pay regardless of whether the relevant payment is a social security payment or a benefit and whether the partner receives a social security payment. It also ensures that the attributed income continues to apply for the full attribution period, including where a payment is cancelled or suspended. The coalition accepts that clarity in income attribution rules is essential for both recipients and the administrators. Clear language and certainty will reduce errors, disputes and administrative complexity and help ensure the payments are calculated consistently and lawfully. Taken together, these three schedules are designed to provide legal clarity, certainty to practices and policy intentions that have existed for some time. However, notwithstanding our decision to not oppose the bill, we will continue to scrutinise the government's approach, particularly in relation to schedule 2. Urgent payments are being used at scale because people are struggling under the weight of the economy and a government that's failing them. They are being accessed disproportionally by vulnerable Australians and are being relied upon in an economic environment where the cost of living continues to rise. The government must demonstrate that it has put in place robust safeguards to ensure that this change does not unintentionally or inadvertently increase financial stress or hardship for people who are already doing it tough. It must also demonstrate that it has effective systems in place to identify repeat use, emerging risk and patterns of vulnerability and that it is actively intervening with appropriate support, not simply processing a higher volume of advance payments. The opposition recognises the broader intent of the legislation and the need to clarify technical aspects of the social security and child support frameworks. For that reason the opposition will not be opposing the passage of this bill. We do, however, put the government on notice: the government must follow through on its commitments. It must ensure that robust safeguards are implemented. It must ensure that financial counselling and social support services are accessible, timely and available to individuals and families who rely on them during periods of financial stress. And it must guarantee that the changes to urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage, deepen vulnerability or create new risks for the very Australians our social safety net is meant to protect. Australian's welfare must strike the right balance between supporting vulnerable Australians and remaining sustainable, responsible and fit for purpose so it can maintain public confidence and long-term viability. That is the expectation of the coalition and that is the benchmark to which the Albanese government must be held. 12:22 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to provide my support to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. Since the Albanese Labor government was first elected, we've been working to restore trust in Australia's social security system, and that trust matters. Without it, the system loses its legitimacy both for taxpayers and for recipients—and also for the broader community. We all remember what happens when that trust breaks down. The legacy of robodebt showed us what occurs when governments ignore legality, ignore fairness and ignore the human consequences of administrative failure. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to take a very different approach. We've raised working age and student payments and increased the annual single rate of JobSeeker by almost $4,000. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by nearly 50 per cent. We've expanded parenting payments single to support around 106,000 additional single parents. We're expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, with superannuation now included, and we are increasing the small debt waiver threshold to $250, with around 1.2 million debts expected to be waived or not raised at all. We've also expanded debt waivers for victims-survivors of financial abuse. All of this is about rebuilding a system that is fair, that is lawful and that is humane. This bill is the next step in that work. This is a technical bill—not just a technical bill but an essential one. The bill makes targeted amendments across three schedules: child support, urgent payments and employment income attribution. Each of these is about aligning legislation with the longstanding policy intent, improving administration and ensuring legal certainty. First, on child support, this bill improves the administration of child support periods and fixes unintended consequences from earlier legislative changes. It also clarifies when a new child support period begins following a new tax assessment. Where an assessment is made after the 15th of the month, the new period will begin not in the next month but, in fact, in the month after. This is a practical reform. It ensures that parents are not given just days to adjust to changes in their financial obligations, which is the difference between thriving and surviving for families in real time. Instead, they are given sufficient time to plan and manage their finances. Just as importantly, the bill corrects an anomaly that could allow a parent with less than 35 per cent care of a child to receive child support. This was never the intention of the parliament. The child support system is based on a clear principle: that the financial responsibility reflects the level of care. Where a parent has less than 35 per cent care, they are not bearing the primary costs of raising a child and should not receive child support. This bill restores that principle across all cases and across all formulas. It does so by retrospectively applying the correction to ensure consistency since 2008 whilst preserving the validity of past decisions and maintaining certainty for families. Importantly, as set out in the statement of compatibility with human rights, these changes promote the best interests of the child and support the right of the child to an adequate standard of living by ensuring that child support is distributed fairly and appropriately. Secondly, on urgent payments, this bill provides a clear legislative framework for urgent payments, a longstanding feature of the social security system that, until now, has not had a sufficiently explicit legal basis. Urgent payments allow people to access part of their accrued entitlement early when they are experiencing exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. This is not an additional payment. Urgent payments allow people to access part of their accrued entitlement early when they are experiencing those exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. This is their lifeline, enabling people to manage sudden costs like medical expenses, housing instability or family emergency. Within this bill, it formalises that system. It establishes clear eligibility criteria, clear limits on payment amounts and safeguards to ensure that people do not overdraw against their entitlement. It also ensures that the system can be delivered efficiently through automated processes while still providing human support where needed, particularly for those who rely on urgent payments frequently. And it sits alongside broader investment, including increased funding for emergency relief services and expansion of the No Interest Loans Scheme to ensure people have access to safe, fair financial support. These reforms promote the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living by ensuring people can access support when they need it the most. Thirdly, on employment income attribution, this bill clarifies how employment income, including a partner's income, is assessed for the purposes of social security payments. It is about ensuring that the income test operates as intended. It makes clear that employment income attribution applies to both the recipient and their partner and that income continues to be attributed across the relevant periods, even where payments are suspended, cancelled or restarted. Again, this is not a policy shift. It is a clarification. It ensures consistency. It removes ambiguity. It strengthens the integrity of the whole system. This bill is about responsible government and about identifying where the law does not align with policy intent and fixing it. It is about ensuring that longstanding administrative practices have a clear legal foundation, and it is about continuing the work of rebuilding trust in Australia's social security system after years of neglect and failure. This bill strengthens the fairness, clarity and effectiveness of the system. This bill also supports families. It supports vulnerable Australians, and it supports confidence in the rule of law. I commend the bill to the Senate. 12:30 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise today to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The Greens will support the measures in this bill that align current practice with legislation, but let me be direct about what this bill represents. It's a government finally and belatedly legislating to make lawful what has for years been conducted without legal basis. That is not a routine technical fix. That is an admission of systemic unlawfulness. The question this chamber must ask is: how did we get here, and what does it tell us about the broader state of our social security system? This bill does not exist in isolation. It is the latest entry in a long and troubling record of noncompliance with social security law, a pattern in which the major parties have, time after time, failed to administer the social security system lawfully. The Commonwealth Ombudsman could not have been more pointed in naming their most recent report Following the law is not optional. That title is not a suggestion. It is a rebuke, and it is a rebuke that has been earned. The scale of known concerns is staggering. There are 144 identified issues of concern already on the record, and yet schedule 3 of this very bill addresses a further issue that does not even appear on that list. In this area of law, it feels as though every month brings a new revelation. The specific practices addressed in this bill are not newly discovered. Services Australia was first aware of them six years ago. Labor has chosen to act only now after the Ombudsman's report made continued inaction untenable. Let me be precise about what a six-year delay in addressing known unlawful practice means. It means that for six years the government administered parts of the social security system without a lawful basis. Practices without a legislative basis are not grey areas. They are unlawful, and the decision not to act on them in a timely way was a choice. Here is what makes this pattern so corrosive. The standard applied to the government's own conduct is entirely different to the standard applied to the people receiving payments. Under the targeted compliance framework, recipients face punitive and swift consequences for any perceived noncompliance—payment suspensions, financial instability and disruption to housing and food security. Hundreds of thousands of people face payment suspensions every single year, and these are not trivial consequences. For people on JobSeeker or youth allowance, a suspension can mean rent not paid, meals skipped and debts compounded. And who oversees this system? A privatised network of job service providers, many of which are, it should be noted, donors to the Labor Party. This means that a system with almost no meaningful accountability, transparency or oversight is delivering life-altering consequences to some of the most financially vulnerable Australians while the government presiding over it cannot even assure this chamber that the system is entirely lawful. Last year, Labor was forced to pause payment cancellations after it was found that thousands had been cancelled unlawfully. The government cannot assure us of the lawfulness of the rest of the system, and yet it continues to function unchecked. Beyond the question of lawfulness sits an even more fundamental problem. The mutual obligation system is built on a false premise. It treats unemployment as a personal failing, a result of insufficient effort, rather than a structural reality. Right now, we have the Reserve Bank raising interest rates because employment and inflation are too high. The ombudsman report addressed this directly and without equivocation. The evidence cited in that report found that the majority of the 652,300 current jobseekers are in fact unlikely to find ongoing employment, no matter how hard they try, given that current employment in Australia is so close to the natural level with respect to the inflation rate. The ombudsman observed that stigmatising unsuccessful jobseekers as people reluctant to accept employment may contribute to limited oversight of providers and a narrow administration of the program, despite the evidence. This is a punishing, costly and largely pointless system. It punishes people for an economic reality they did not create and cannot individually solve. The Greens will be moving several amendments to this bill. Firstly, we will be moving a second reading amendment. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to: (a) increase the rate of social security payments above the poverty line, ensuring no one is forced to live in poverty; and (b) abolish the parental income test for Youth Allowance for those not living at home; and (c) abolish the partner income test for all social security payments, ensuring that a partner's income will no longer be required to be considered for a social security payment for an individual". This amendment seeks to call on the government to abolish the parental income test for youth allowance, a test that punishes young people for their parents' income and treats them as dependents long into adulthood. The second reading amendment also calls on the government to abolish the partner income test for all social security payments. Every person in this country deserves to be treated as an individual, with financial autonomy and independence, not as an appendage to their partner's income. And there is ample evidence that continuing to insist on testing people's income support against their partner's income is a not insignificant factor in preventing women from escaping situations of family and domestic violence. We will also be moving some Committee of the Whole amendments, and they will relate to reinstating the six-year limit on debt recovery, something that is an outstanding recommendation of the robodebt royal commission. We will also be seeking to remove the arbitrary limit on the amount a person can request as an urgent payment. People need those urgent payments for things like bonds when they get evicted because their rental is being sold, or they need those payments to get a new fridge when their fridge breaks down. None of those things cost $200, and forcing people to go back day after day after day asking for $200 is not only inefficient it is punitive to those people who need that urgent money when they are subsisting on an income support payment that is below poverty levels. Our current rates of income support, it must be noted, are not merely low. They are among the lowest in the entire OECD. There are virtually zero rental properties affordable to anyone on jobseeker or youth allowance, and Labor's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has told the government for consecutive years that rates must increase substantially and not claim indexation as a rise. The government has not acted on this to the extent that it must. The global economic uncertainty created by the Trump administration's war of aggression will have real consequences for the Australian economy. An economic disruption of this kind always hits those on income support hardest and first. Raising the rate of payments is not just a matter of compassion; it is a matter of economic resilience. That is why I have written to the minister this week calling on Labor to pause mutual obligations and raise income support payments. Even the coalition took some of these steps during the pandemic. That was a precedent, and there is no excuse at this time of rising economic inequality. Our social security system should be administered lawfully. That should not be a radical expectation; it is the minimum. And yet issue upon issue continues to be identified year after year, suggesting that lawfulness is treated as aspirational rather than foundational. Our social security system should support people, not punish them. We have a political and media culture that too often stigmatises and shames those who rely on income support, as though poverty is a personal failure rather than a policy outcome. The people receiving these payments are not asking for much; they're asking for a system that operates lawfully, does not keep them in poverty and treats them as individuals with autonomy and dignity. That is not a high bar. It is the bar that any decent society should clear without question. The Greens will continue to fight until that bar is cleared and until every person in this country who needs support receives it lawfully, adequately and with their dignity intact. 12:40 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania (): I rise today to speak in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The coalition understands the integral role of Australia's Child Support Scheme. That is why, during our years in government, we strengthened and supported the scheme to ensure it delivered for some of Australia's most vulnerable: our children. The reasons families break down are complex, but it is never the fault of the child. That is why the Child Support Scheme exists: to ensure that, regardless of where or with whom they live, children affected by family breakdown are not financially disadvantaged and can be kept safe. This bill makes technical changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Act to clarify and validate child support assessment arrangements and includes three schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to clarify and validate child support assessment arrangements. Part 1 of the schedule adjusts when a new child support period starts after updated tax information becomes available. In some cases, this delays the start by an extra month to help parents manage financial challenges. Part 2 confirms that individuals with less than 35 per cent care of a child, whether a parent or a non-parent carer, are not entitled to child support. This change will apply retrospectively from 1 July 2008, validating past decisions and leaving historic assessments unchanged. Schedule 2 amends the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act to provide clearer legal authority for urgent payments for eligible recipients outside the normal fortnightly cycle. It establishes a legislative framework for administering urgent payments, abolishes the current limit of two urgent payments per year and introduces safeguards to ensure welfare recipients have sufficient funds to meet regular expenses on their usual payment day. Schedule 3 amends the Social Security Act to clarify how employment income is attributed when calculating a person's rate of payment. These changes will make it easier for child support assessments to be made and for children to receive the financial support they need to thrive, which is why the coalition will not stand in the way of this bill. However, it must be noted that there are areas where further scrutiny of these changes is warranted. Few countries provide the strong safety net that Australian taxpayers fund. Our social services system exists to support those who need a hand. It is not a bottomless resource and should not be viewed as a long-term income prospect. The coalition recognises that most parents do the right thing and fulfil their child support obligations. Since its introduction in 1988, the government scheme has transferred over $33 billion in child support payments. We understand how crucial this support is for children and single-parent households. That is why we support the changes in this legislation that facilitate the introduction of urgent payments. These situations are rarely linear. Circumstances change, and payments can be missed or delayed. But, when parents do not pay child support on time, it has a real and material impact on the financial security of single parents and their children. We must ensure we have a robust system that delivers assistance when it is needed, and sometimes that requires firm measures to ensure child support is paid. It is important to note that urgent payments are not additional assistance. They allow eligible recipients to access a portion of their regular fortnightly entitlements in advance in cases of exceptional and unforeseen financial hardship. The coalition accepts that these payments must operate within a lawful and transparent framework. However, we have questions about how the removal of the annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will genuinely exist to prevent harm. Given that urgent payments merely bring forward a portion of an existing entitlement, further information is needed on the measures the government will implement to ensure recipients are not drawn into a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship. We cannot consider these changes in isolation from the broader economic challenges facing Australians. Families have experienced another interest rate rise, and global conflict in the Middle East has significantly impacted the availability and affordability of fuel and fertiliser—developments that are likely to have serious consequences for agriculture and in turn food security. Groceries, rent, insurance and other essentials of life have already increased to unmanageable levels under this government. Australians are paying more for everything: food, fuel, rent, insurance, health care, mortgage repayments and energy. These are essentials, not luxury purchases. It is therefore hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may already be reliant on urgent payments of the kind proposed under these changes. The Albanese Labor government must put in place a framework that ensures urgent payments are assessed properly and delivered to those who genuinely need them. Given the number of Australians were doing it tough and Labor's failure to present a credible plan to address, this we must ensure urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage or become subject to misuse. The child support scheme exists to protect our most vulnerable and ensure that, despite changes in family circumstances, children can fully participate in life, receive an education and thrive wherever they live. But we must also remember that our social service safety net is funded by the sacrifice of hardworking Australian taxpayers. It must be fit for purpose and capable of meeting tomorrow's challenges. We also have an obligation to future generations, who will bear the long-term consequences of the decisions made today. A well designed income support system must provide a robust and sustainable safety net, protecting the most vulnerable, supporting people through periods of hardship and enabling pathways to independence and self-reliance. The coalition will support the practical measures contained in this bill and recognises its broader intent. For that reason, we will not oppose its passage. However, the government must follow through on its commitment to implement robust safeguards and ensure financial accounts and social services are accessible, timely and available to individuals and families experiencing financial stress. It must also guarantee that changes to urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage, deepen vulnerability or create new risks for the very Australians our world-class social safety net is designed to protect. Our focus must be on getting more people into work and contributing to a stronger economy, not on keeping Australians dependent on welfare. Despite these concerns, I am pleased to speak on this matter and to support my coalition colleagues in not standing in the way of this bill. 12:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I commend the bill to the Senate and thank senators for their contributions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 274506 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:51]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sharma)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. A. Mulholland, C. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 40 12:56 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move Greens amendment on sheet 3733: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: (1) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (lines 15 and 16), omit "an amount between $20 and $200", substitute "an amount that is equal to or greater than $20". _____ Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to remove the upper amount that a person can request by way of an urgent payment. This will likely lead to recipients of urgent payments requesting and receiving higher amounts of payment, increasing expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 This amendment seeks to remove the $200 upper limit on urgent payments. There were several submissions into the inquiry into this bill, including from ACOSS and Economic Justice Australia, that argued that the upper limit should be removed. The Economic Justice Australia submission says: EJA recommends removing the upper limit on the amount a person can request as an urgent payment, which the Bill currently sets at $200. They go on to say: Subsection (3DD) in Item 9 of the Bill already limits how much can actually be paid, and there appears to be little utility in refusing to consider larger requests. The reasons a person may require an urgent payment are many and varied, and not limited to an arbitrary monetary value. Minister, I'm interested in understanding how the government arrived at the $200 upper limit, particularly in circumstances where we know, as many of the submissions into the inquiry noted, that the sorts of things that people need urgent payments for are, more often than not, more than $200—things like needing to pull together a bond when someone is evicted from their rental. We're increasingly seeing people experiencing no-grounds evictions because owners want to sell their properties and make a profit. We're also seeing people have things like washing machines or fridges break down—things that are essential to their daily lives—and I challenge anyone to go and find a washing machine or a fridge on the market that's $200 or less. I want to know why the government has put this upper limit on it, and I note too that this is in the context of people being expected to run down their savings before they can get access to income support. ACOSS has found that 40 per cent of people on income support have less than $500 in savings, so I'm keen to understand why the government is placing a $200 limit on urgent payment requests (a) when they don't really cover the things that people generally need urgent payments for and (b) in circumstances where ACOSS, Economic Justice Australia, the Antipoverty Centre and other advocates and submitters have suggested that that should be the case. 12:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting Senator Allman-Payne's amendment, and I can deal with her question in response to the amendment. This bill doesn't seek to change the upper limit for urgent payment requests. That has been in place for some time now. This bill is around ensuring the legal authority to provide urgent payments. This bill hasn't sought to change the limits. I accept Senator Allman-Payne has a different view about the adequacy of those limits, but this bill is not about that. This is about ensuring the lawful payment of urgent payments. 12:59 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Thank you for that response, Minister, and I note that you said that this has been in place for some time. We have seen, particularly in recent months and certainly over the last couple of years, that costs for everything are going through the roof. Rents are out of control. People are getting smashed at the supermarket. We're now seeing people not being able to afford fuel. Does the government accept that it needs to take action on increasing these amounts because the current political context and the economic context demands that people actually need more? 13:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will always consider the adequacy of payments in every budget and every budget update that we do. We have done that since coming to government. I would point out to Senator Allman-Payne that we have increased the rate of JobSeeker by more than $4,300 per year to $817.50 per fortnight for singles. We've also delivered record increases to Commonwealth rent assistance—a 25 per cent increase in that. We have frozen PBS scripts at $7.70 for people on concession or on pensions, JobSeeker and youth allowance. So I accept that we need to continue to engage and consider cost-of-living responses to the economic circumstances that we face, but this bill does not seek to do that. This is around the methodical response to issues around legal authority that Minister Plibersek and I have been working through in a careful and considered way. I accept the Greens have a view about adequacy of payments, but that is not what this bill is about, so I would just bring it back to what we're trying to do here, which is to actually ensure that urgent payments are provided in a lawful way. 13:01 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, I think your answer goes to the biggest issue that we have in relation to social security, which is that, yes, this system continues to operate unlawfully. At the last few estimates, neither the minister nor the department has been able to assure me or the other senators asking questions or the public that the system is actually operating lawfully in its entirety. I take your point that this bill seeks to address some of the unlawfulness of the system, but surely, given the government has a social security bill before the parliament, this is an opportunity to address the adequacy of payments. Whilst I note your statement that the government has increased payments somewhat, I really want to place on the record again that it is nowhere near what your own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has recommended for consecutive years. People in this country are still living well below the poverty line. One in six children are living in poverty. Women are not able to escape family and domestic violence because they are subjected to a partner income test, which we just had an amendment for in the second reading and you voted down. Is it the government's position that income support payments right now, in the current context, are adequate? 13:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The point I'm making is that this bill is not about increasing social security payments. I have said the way the government deals with that and consideration about that is through the budget process. This is not an appropriations bill, and it hasn't been brought to the chamber in that way. This has been about working through some of the legal and other compliance issues that have been raised with me as a minister and with Minister Plibersek and responding to that in the most urgent and timely way that we are in a position to, and we will continue to do so. I accept the legitimate debate that the Greens have and that we engage in and that we consider as part of our budget processes. But this is not the bill that seeks to do that. It's around ensuring legal authority, and this is urgent and serious, because we want to make sure that those urgent payments can continue to be made. 13:04 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, you say that this is urgent and serious, and yet the department knew about this unlawfulness. I know it keeps being framed as inconsistency with the law or being unaligned to the legislative framework. Let's be clear: it is unlawfulness. The department has known about this for six years. You have been in government for four. If it is so urgent and serious, why has it taken four years to bring this bill before the parliament? 13:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, when I took on this portfolio and issues around legal compliance were raised with me, I asked Services Australia—and Minister Plibersek did the same on her appointment as Minister for Social Services—for all of the issues that were being raised and were continuing to be raised—you know, it's not just a point-in-time piece of work—to be brought forward and addressed, including issues that required legislation, issues that required a procedural response and issues that required further clarification. We have done that piece of work, and this is the result of that—bringing it forward in the way that you see. So I'm certainly standing here saying that we are dealing with this in an urgent way. I can't answer for the previous government; I can only answer for the time that I have been responsible, and I've brought this to the Senate at the earliest opportunity when I've been in a position to do so. 13:06 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland In the interests of time, rather than having to have divisions and then people leaving and coming back, I might move my other amendments and ask a couple of questions around those, and then everything can be taken together. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 296215 You will require leave to move them en bloc. Leave granted. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Yes, noting that you may wish to put the question separately. But I just want to move another amendment. I move the amendment on sheet 3734, in relation to indexation of urgent payments and the upper limit: (1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 14 (after line 29), after section 43A, insert: 43B Indexation of urgent payment request upper limit (1) On the first 1 July to occur after the commencement of this section and each later 1 July (an indexation day), the amount of $200 mentioned in paragraph 43(3DB)(a) (the indexable amount) is replaced by the amount worked out using the following formula: The indexable amount immediately before the indexation day x Indexation factor for the indexation day (2) The amount worked out under subsection (1) is to be rounded to the nearest whole dollar (rounding 50 cents upwards). Indexation factor (3) The indexation factor for an indexation day is the number worked out using the following formula: Index number for the reference quarter / Index number for the base quarter where: base quarter means the last March quarter before the reference quarter. index number, for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number (being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician for that quarter. March quarter means a period of 3 months starting on 1 January. reference quarter means the last March quarter before the indexation day. (4) The indexation factor is to be worked out to 3 decimal places (rounding up if the fourth decimal place is 5 or more). Changes to CPI index reference period and publication of substituted index numbers (5) Amounts are to be worked out under this section: (a) using only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published index reference period for the Consumer Price Index; and (b) disregarding index numbers published in substitution for previously published index numbers (except where the substitution is to transition to a new index reference period). Publication of indexable amount (6) The Minister must, by notifiable instrument, publish the replacement indexable amount as soon as practicable after the indexation day. However, a failure by the Minister to do so does not invalidate the indexation. Minister, the reason that I'm moving this amendment is that if my previous amendment that I have moved fails—that is, if the government does not accept there should be an upper limit—then, consistent with advocates, including Economic Justice Australia, it's the Greens' position that that upper should be indexed. I note that Economic Justice Australia said in their submission: … the Bill does not contemplate indexation of this limit. If an upper limit must be placed on requests, that limit should be indexed to account for inflation. We've already heard the Treasurer say that we are looking at very high inflation, so I would suggest that this is quite urgent. Without making this change, further legislative work will be needed when $200 is no longer relevant. Given the extent of legislative change that is going to be required just to make the social security law lawful across the board—I've already spoken about the fact that there are 144 items outstanding—my submission to you is that this would save legislative work going forward. So my question is: if the government insists on having an upper limit of $200, do you accept that, at the very least, that limit should be indexed to keep pace with inflation? 13:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Allman-Payne for moving that amendment and for the question. My answer is very similar to the answer on the previous amendment. This bill does not seek to change settings of the amount that can be paid through the urgent payment, including in relation to any indexation. People can currently request an urgent payment of between $20 and $200. This limit has been in place, as I said, for some time now and will remain. It's not the standard approach to index payments like the urgent payment in the social security system, unlike the ongoing payments. The formula proposed in this amendment is not the same as the indexation settings in the Social Security Act. The $200 upper limit means people still have enough funds on their usual payment delivery day to cover their regular expenses. So we will be opposing this amendment as well. 13:09 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland by leave—I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedule 3", substitute "Schedules 3 and 4". (2) Page 23 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Time limit on debt recovery Part 1 — Amendments A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 1 Section 93B Repeal the section, substitute: 93B Time limit on debt recovery For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed. Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 2 Section 192A Repeal the section, substitute: 192A Time limit on debt recovery For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed. Social Security Act 1991 3 Section 1234B Repeal the section, substitute: 1234B Time limit on debt recovery For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Chapter, for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt or overpayment first existed. Student Assistance Act 1973 4 Section 42B Repeal the section, substitute: 42B Time limit on debt recovery For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed. Part 2 — Application of amendments 5 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a debt that is raised or an overpayment that is made, before, on or after this item commences. Noting that Labor has had ample opportunity since the robodebt royal commission to implement all of the recommendations of that commission, the government is dragging its feet on re-instigating a six-year limit on debt recovery. The Greens are moving this amendment to this bill because the government needs to act on this. Across other areas of the law—commercial law et cetera—it is accepted that if you haven't chased a debt after six years, then you need to forgo it, because people need certainty. People on income support are already under enough stress, trying to get by, without having to be worried that a department that we know regularly makes errors in payments is going to come after them years down the track for debts that they owe because the government has made an error. I would submit to the government that when you give an unlimited timeframe to a department to chase debts, there is no incentive whatsoever to get the system right if they know that they can go after people for money six, 10, 15, 20 years after the fact because they stuffed up. That means that nobody in this country who has ever relied on income support payments can be sure, at any time in the future, even when they're not using income support anymore, that the government is not going to come after them for a debt at some point. That is a genuine fear for people who have been on income support and who continue to remain on income support. You cannot underestimate the trauma and the harm of robodebt and what that means for everyone now on income support. I have spoken to people who are running down their superannuation savings because they have either lost loved ones or been impacted by robodebt and they are too frightened to go into Centrelink and subject themselves to a system that may chase them for a debt years down the track. Why is it that there is a different standard for people on welfare compared to other areas of the law? I have asked the minister about this, and I've been told, 'We're working on it.' Well, it's a long time since the robodebt royal commission. You have been in government for four years. This is a key recommendation of the commissioner. So my question to you is: will you support this amendment to finally implement a key recommendation of the royal commission so that people on income support and people who have used the income support system in the past can have some level of certainty? Secondly, if you're not going to support this amendment today, when are you finally going to fix this? 13:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We will be opposing this amendment. As Senator Allman-Payne has outlined, we have agreed in principle to this recommendation, and we are working through it. The Minister for Social Services is leading that work to examine how an effective statute of limitations would operate. The old six-year statute of limitations was not as effective as it could have been and did not provide a meaningful limit on the recovery of historic debts. For this measure to be effective, it needs to be carefully designed and consulted on, a process the government is carrying out carefully. I would also say that it was this government that established the robodebt royal commission, and it's this government that is implementing the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. I can assure those in this chamber that we would not in any sense ever entertain the unlawful scheme that was put forward by the former government, which actually wasn't about legitimate debt recovery; it was about pursuing Australians for debts that they didn't owe and hadn't incurred and threatening them with jail if they didn't pay up. So that's fundamentally different. Yes, a recommendation came out of the robodebt royal commission, which we will respond to, but the policy failure of robodebt didn't have anything to do with the statute of limitations. It had something to do with an unlawful policy where the government of a country pursued its own citizens for debts they didn't owe and hounded them and their families to the most tragic of outcomes for some. It caused enduring grief and loss for too many Australians. This is something the minister is working through. It does have budget implications. I know the Greens don't have to worry about that. That's fine. But we have to respond to that and think that through, and that's the work that both Minister Plibersek and I will continue to do. I also want to put on the record that I object to the comment made by Senator Allman-Payne. I think she called it a 'department that constantly gets payments wrong'. It was roughly that language. I don't accept that. If you looked at the work that's done in Services Australia and the Department of Social Services and you saw the amount of payments going out, the responsiveness and the level of work that goes in at the coalface to support vulnerable and low-income Australians who rely on payments to support them, I don't think you would come in here and make a claim like that. Yes, there are issues that we have to respond to in relation to legal compliance, but I strongly support Services Australia in the work that they do every day to make sure that people who rely on Services Australia get the best advice and access to the payments that they're entitled to and that they deserve. 13:17 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Just to be clear—I am not criticising the work of people in offices dealing with people on income support. What I am criticising is a department and a system that is not 100 per cent lawful, and the government cannot assure people on income support that it is. That is a problem. Secondly, it is not actually people in Centrelink who are the ones cutting off people from their payments; it's people sitting in job service provider offices, private offices—people who are not being overseen by the government to the level that they should be. It is a government responsibility to decide whether someone's payment gets cut off, and the government has continued the practice of the coalition to outsource that decision-making. That is a problem. Finally, again, I am continually amazed at the level of understanding that the government has when errors are made by the department when absolutely none of that is shown to people on income support when they make errors. They are the ones who are at risk of losing housing, of not being able to eat and of not being able to get their kids what they need to go to school. Cutting off someone's payment, even if it's temporarily suspended, is catastrophic. There is such a difference between how we treat the department when they make an error and how we treat people on income support, who you refuse to get above the poverty line. Honestly, do not keep repeating the line that no-one should be left behind when you repeatedly leave behind people on income support. Don't lecture the Greens about having to make hard budget decisions. Maybe have one less submarine, which you're never going to get. We are shovelling billions of dollars out the door to the US, to an essentially fascist regime that bombs anybody any time they feel like it, come hell or high water, regardless of international law. You are giving over $360 billion to them, and it is not making us safer. Yet you say to people on income support: 'Maybe next budget. Maybe the one after that. Maybe the one after that.' Well, if you are not going to do it, again, don't lie to people. Do not go out there and say, 'We're not leaving anyone behind,' because you are. Frankly, I don't know how people making those decisions can sleep at night. You talk to me about me needing to talk to people at Services Australia. Well, go and talk to the people who are trying to get by on poverty payments when inflation is going up, fuel is going up, food is going up, rent is going up. There's hardly a rental in the country that they can afford. So don't stand here and tell me that I don't know, or the Greens don't know, how to balance a budget. What we know is that we need to look after Australians. We need to look after the most vulnerable, and no-one is buying the argument that $360 billion of submarines and AUKUS make us safer. While the planet cooks, you continue to shove money out the door to fossil fuel companies, telling us that you're acting on climate, while propping up fossil fuel companies. Maybe give some of that money to people on income support. The hypocrisy of it: we are giving gas away for free, but we can't help people on income support to live above the poverty line. If you do not like me yelling about it, too bad. Do something. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 296215 Senator Allman-Payne, I'd ask you to address your comments through the chair. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 My apologies. Through the chair, when is the government going to lift people on income support out of poverty? 13:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At risk of taking a fact checker to what Senator Allman-Payne has just shouted at the chamber—I mean, there are microphones in place for the purposes of ensuring that everybody can hear what you say—the reality is the Greens have never had to balance a budget, Senator Allman-Payne. I don't know what is factually untrue about that. Nothing. You haven't. I accept it's the Greens political party's position to diminish national security and defence of the country—that is the position you bring into this chamber on a daily basis. We have a different view. We think it is the Australian government's responsibility to keep its citizens safe and ensure appropriate resourcing for national security and defence purposes. I accept you disagree with that as a priority, and I accept that if you were putting a budget together you would make different budget decisions, but you have never had to make those choices. Senator Allman-Payne you have never, ever had to make them. You have never had to make them, so you dance in here, in the fairyland that the Greens political party lives in, failing to understand— Senator Shoebridge interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I can't hear Senator Shoebridge, but I know he continuously interjects. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 296215 I'll just address those. Senators at the end of the chamber, while Senator Allman-Payne was on her feet, she was heard in silence. Interjections are disorderly, so I ask you that, if you can't sit in silence, please leave the chamber. For the respect of the person on their feet addressing the chamber, I require silence. I cannot hear her to my right, and she's sitting very, very close to me, because I can hear the interjections. Please remain silent. Minister, you have the call. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, Chair, and for your protection. As I have said in the previous contributions, we have increased payments, including for those on JobSeeker, including for those on parenting payments single and including for those who are in receipt of rental assistance. We have also taken a number of other steps that interact with the payment system. Our Medicare bulk-billing, for example, was targeted to people on concession cards and those under the age of 16 until we made it broadly more applicable. To make medicines cheaper for people on concession cards, they were capped at $7.70 for the next few years. These are all steps that we have taken to provide support. Energy bill relief, including an extra payment that went to those on concessions, was recognising that people on fixed and low incomes require additional cost-of-living support, and we have provided it. As I said, we will continue to look at payments, as we do every budget. They are appropriately indexed so that when there are periods of higher inflation, that is dealt with through the way we index those payments. I don't accept the analysis put forward by Senator Allman-Payne in any way. The reality is the Greens political party don't ever have to make choices; you just have a list of demands. You are a party of protest, and you come in here and exercise that protest on the floor of the chamber. But the reality is that you don't not have to think about the broader decisions that go into making a budget. Senator GALLAGHER ING That's fine, but I am making a different point. The point I'm making is that when we are looking at some of the changes to social security, including adequacy of payments, we don't do it by a Greens amendment on the floor of the Senate; we do it through a budget process. That's what parties of government have to do, because, at the end of the day, they have to work out how you meet competing and different priorities. Whether it be national security and defence, which I know you would ignore and think is not a priority, whether it's dealing with pressure in the education system, whether it's dealing with pressure on hospitals, whether it's dealing with pressure on payments, whether it's dealing with pressure on the energy system, across the board those are the decisions we have to make when we put a budget together. I know you would like to make it sound that you could just stop that, triple that, end defence spending and have everyone be happy, but the reality is that that is not the world that we are living in. It might be a Greens fantasy world, but it isn't the real world. The parties of government that sit in this chamber have to deal with the real world. You can scoff, Senator Allman-Payne. You can scoff and you can ignore reality and live in Greens fairy land, but we will govern from the real world. Senator Allman-Payne 298839 A point of order. The minister has said that I scoffed. I didn't even open my mouth. I ask that she withdraw. Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm happy to withdraw. I saw something different, but I'm happy to withdraw. We will not support the amendments that have been moved by Senator Allman-Payne. They are all of a similar type, which is seeking to change the amount of the payment as opposed to providing legal certainty for the payment, which is what this bill seeks to do. It is important that we get this bill done, and I accept that we're not going to be able to do that this week. I'm hoping that we are going to be in a position to do it next week. These are some of the first pieces of work that we are pulling together to deal with those issues of legal noncompliance which Senator Allman-Payne identified in her earlier remarks. There are a number of them, and we will continue to bring those pieces of work to the chamber in an orderly way once the government has considered them and received the advice from relevant departments. This bill is not the avenue for the Greens political party to pursue other goals or other policy ideas. This is about ensuring legal compliance around the ability to provide urgent payments. The advice government got on urgent payments is that we needed to respond in legislation to ensure that those people Senator Allman-Payne says she is concerned about, and whom the government is similarly concerned about, are able to lawfully be provided with those urgent payments when it is appropriate. This is a series of pieces of work that will come to this chamber to deal with that. We don't support the Greens amendment or the contribution from Senator Allman-Payne. 13:29 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland To be clear—the Greens said from the outset that we support this bill, but my question was: what is the timeframe? For several years, we have been hearing that this is happening, that the government is working on it and that it is consulting. For the benefit of advocates— Progress reported. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 It being 1.30 pm, we will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 47 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Fuel 47 13:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Labor has not been upfront with the Australian people. The economy is weak. It was weakening before the Iran crisis, and now we see that fuel supplies are simply not secure. What have we heard from key ministers in this Labor government on this fuel crisis? Minister Bowen, the energy minister, said: We have as much fuel in Australia today as we had the day that Iran was bombed. Clare O'Neil, the housing minister, said: … we have the fuel circulating in the economy that we need. How about Infrastructure Minister Catherine King? You'd think the infrastructure minister would have some interest in how things move in this country. She said: We've got plenty of fuel in the country. Today, the first Western Australian iron ore mining company has reduced its operations on the basis of fuel availability. Western Australia's great iron ore industry is now under threat due to the inaction and incompetence of this government. We have heard so many stories from the farming community, from business and from the mining sector—first the gold sector and now the iron ore industry—that say this crisis is real. The government, sitting on its hands, doing nothing for week after week after week, exacerbated and failed to come to grips with this problem. Australians are hurting as a direct result of the inaction and incompetence of this Labor government. The government has lost control. It has no plan. Parkinson's Disease 47 13:32 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak about an important event recently held at Parliament House, the launch of Australia's first National Parkinson's Action Plan. This plan represents a real step forward for people living with Parkinson's, their families and their carers. It brings together the work of researchers, clinicians, advocates and people with lived experience to set out a clear national pathway for better care, better coordination and better outcomes. A few weeks before the launch, I had the opportunity to meet with Richard Wylie and Harley Stanton from the National Parkinson's Alliance in my home state of Tasmania. It was a constructive conversation, and I want to acknowledge their leadership and the work that they've done to bring the sector together under a single, united voice. That work has been significant. The plan has been shaped through extensive consultation, including thousands of patient and carer contributions, alongside input from health professionals and researchers across the country. We know Parkinson's is a complex and progressive condition. It does not just affect individuals; it affects families, communities and our health system more broadly. That is why a national approach matters. The National Parkinson's Alliance has also set out a clear plan for implementation, alongside a modest funding request to support coordination and delivery over the next five years. The launch at Parliament House brought together people from across the sector and the parliament. The room was full. It was clear that this is an issue that brings people together. We saw industry leaders, researchers, clinicians, advocates, MPs and senators all in one place, focused on improving the outcomes for people living with Parkinson's. This is an opportunity to make real progress. I welcome the work of the National Parkinson's Alliance and the Parkinson's community. I hope this plan helps deliver better outcomes for Australians living with Parkinson's and their families. Middle East 48 13:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Four weeks ago, Trump and Netanyahu launched a war of aggression against Iran, triggering a global crisis that may take years to recover from. Instead of denouncing this act of madness, Labor jumped on board. Not only was Anthony Albanese the first world leader to endorse this insanity but he's since drawn Australia into the conflict, risking Australian lives in a war started by a delusional tyrant at the behest of a genocidal psychopath. Everyone will suffer from this, but some are going to suffer more than others. For people in regional, rural and remote Australia, the energy crisis is already hitting hard, with fuel prices soaring and shortages of diesel and petrol reported all over the country, including in my state of Queensland. When goods transport networks fail, it will be people outside urban centres who will bear the brunt of those shortages. When food and medicine prices spike, regional, rural and remote people—already overrepresented among Australia's poorest and most disadvantaged—will be the ones who cop it the hardest. People are worried and they're angry. But Labor—despite its enthusiastic support for the war that has directly produced this historic crisis—doesn't have answers for them. The Greens are calling for public transport to be made free nationwide to provide immediate relief for millions and to free up fuel supply for rural, regional and remote communities. We've also called on the government to pause mutual obligations and raise income support payments, just like the Morrison government did during the pandemic. We need a 25 per cent tax on gas exports to claw back wartime profits and we need to withdraw support for the war. We need to bring our troops home and demand an immediate end to the conflict. New South Wales: Ramadan 48 13:36 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Last month, I was able to visit the Lakemba Ramadan dinner. It was a great pleasure to be there as Ramadan finished last week with my good friends in the Lakemba branch of the Liberal Party, led by Mohammad Zaman. It was a magnificent evening and an opportunity to meet with many members of the community. It was also an opportunity for us to remind all the people that attended that Ramadan dinner of our great support for Australian Muslims and acknowledge their patriotism and loyalty to Australia, which has been tested at times with some of the public statements that have been made by people who should know better. It was a great event, of course. It was a very good evening with the magnificent community there in south-west Sydney. I also acknowledge all the members of the branch and the many other councillors, members and senators who attended, including Senator Collins, Senator Kovacic and Senator Sharma, as well as the New South Wales opposition leader, Kellie Sloane. It was great to be with her and many other members of the state parliamentary team. Artificial Intelligence 48 13:37 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria The data centre gold rush is on. Australia has around 250 data centres. About 40 of these are in Victoria and there's a pipeline of about $40 billion in investment. The community, however, has legitimate concerns around water, energy and jobs. Nobody wants this industry to cannibalise our resources, and we certainly do not want this industry to lose its social licence before it even begins in earnest, so the Albanese Labor government has released a statement of expectations. We expect data centres to underwrite their own new renewable energy and not just piggyback off existing projects as part of our climate targets. This is important because in 2024-25 data centres used about two per cent of Australia's electricity, but that's projected to increase to 11 per cent by 2035. We also expect them to cover their own transmission costs and to use water carefully and efficiently. Water usage in 2025 was low; it was about 0.5 per cent of total industrial water use. We're encouraging them to recycle their water, use recycled water or non-drinking water, or reuse water in a circular fashion. This is about getting digital bang for our water buck. Then there are the shared benefits. We are expecting them to provide jobs, like pathways for apprentices in the build-out of these facilities, and privileged access to computing power for our start-ups, which can be quite expensive for start-ups. This is how we build responsible AI, and responsible AI is ultimately sustainable AI. If data centre operators follow these expectations, they will be channelled into the fast lane; otherwise, they will end up on the road to nowhere, as far as Commonwealth approvals go. Middle East 49 13:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As a senator for the ACT, I never expected to spend so much time here in the chamber speaking about international relations. But here I am again. What's happening overseas has an impact on our multicultural Australia. Many Canberrans are writing to me expressing their concern with the Australian government's position of apparently uncritical support for the actions of our US allies regardless of their consistency with international law. I'm hearing about Lebanese Australians deeply concerned about what is happening in Lebanon, and I raise this today because we've again heard very little from the Australian government in the face of deeply concerning actions that, on the face of it, seemed to breach international law. Earlier this year, we saw appalling attacks by the IRGC against Iranian civilians and thousands upon thousands of innocents brutally murdered. While I know that many in the Iranian community welcomed the subsequent intervention by the US and Israel and the removal of the ayatollah, many in the Lebanese community now watch on in horror, and fear for loved ones, as the conflict spreads to attacks in Lebanon. I want to recognise your fear and concern. There are reports of more than a million Lebanese people displaced within Lebanon. Human Rights Watch researchers say they have confirmed that Israel is using white phosphorus to scorch the earth in southern Lebanon. I recognise that the Australian government, earlier this week, provided an additional $5 million in humanitarian aid to civilians impacted by the ongoing conflict in Lebanon, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs calling on all parties to 'adhere to international humanitarian law' and calling for 'the protection of civilians and aid workers'. But the comments seem very muted in the face of what is being reported. We need more consistency, as a middle power, and we need to call out these sorts of breaches of international law, regardless of who does them. Fuel 49 13:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Australians have been let down by this government, and Australians are hurting because of this government's flat-footedness when it comes to our latest crisis, which, of course, is amidst a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis—all situations, sadly, that this government has done nothing about. Australians have been left hanging in the breeze when it comes to the latest cost-of living issue, and that is the fuel crisis, of course, where the government was caught flat-footed on an issue that anyone else would have seen coming. When we saw other nations putting in place measures to deal with what could possibly be about to happen in the Middle East, we stood idly by. So here we are. In the last sitting fortnight, colleagues will remember, we had ministers telling this chamber that there was nothing to worry about—that we had everything under control and any suggestion there was a fuel crisis in this country was sheer scaremongering and right-wing extremist misinformation. Well, here we are today, and the government have admitted that there is a fuel crisis underway. But, sadly, this government have lost control, and, as a result of the inaction and ill-preparedness, Australians are the ones paying the price. Just to check on how fuel prices are going in my home state of Tasmania: in downtown Hobart, you're paying $3.23 a litre for diesel. These are prices that we have not seen for some time and which Australians just cannot afford to sustain. So, if the government is in control of this situation, if the government does have a plan, it's about time we heard about it. Can the government guarantee there won't be fuel rationing? Can it guarantee that there won't be a lack of supply coming into this country, or, indeed, that we won't run out? Can it guarantee that fuel prices will be reduced? These are the questions Australians are asking. If the government can't provide answers to those questions then, again, it is proof positive this government has let Australians down, as it has with the cost of living generally and with housing. It is not up to the job. (Time expired) Taxation, Ports: Port Operators 49 13:44 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales AI and automation are already changing how work is carried out across the country, including at our ports. DP World is now the world's fifth-largest port operator and handles close to 40 per cent of Australian container trade. From 2011 to 2024, DP World earned around $8.9 billion in revenue in Australia but, over that period, paid only one per cent in corporate tax. Now, you'd think they'd use that to provide increased support to their workforce, but no. The share of revenue going to workers has dropped from 54 per cent to 35 per cent in just a six-year period. All this is happening at the same time port charges are going up across the system. ACCC data shows that companies like DP World have driven a surge in landside charges, noting that they 'keep increasing rates without any improvement in productivity'. Now they're pushing ahead with an AI automation program that could threaten up to 1,000 jobs. They want to charge more. They want to pay less. They want to cut jobs. It's all a one-way street where only they take the gains and everyone else carries the cost. This week, I spoke at the launch of the Maritime Union of Australia's report on DP World. The government is committed to working closely with the union movement to ensure that workers not only benefit from the rollout of AI but also are kept safe. Under laws in New South Wales, employers are explicitly required to ensure that AI and algorithmic systems do not risk the health and safety of workers. Workers and their unions also have the right to assess and inspect their systems where there are safety concerns. We are continuing to review our laws to make sure that they keep pace with an AI driven economy and properly protect workers. (Time expired) Fuel, Workplace Relations 50 13:46 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to our fuel crisis and how people working from home could help ease supply. Australians are really hurting. We want nothing to do with Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war, the war that the war parties in this place have endorsed, and yet here we are suffering its consequences, fleeced by corporations profiteering from death and destruction. While massive gas companies are making huge wartime profits, there are Australians who are paying $50 a day to get to and from work. I heard from them last week on an extended talkback from Sydney—$50 a day! This is a disgrace. It is a massive bite out of workers' incomes, affecting their families and their communities. We all agree that working from home allows workers to save money on rising fuel prices and frees up fuel supply for those who can't work from home, but it shouldn't take a fuel crisis for workers to increase and look for flexibility in their workplaces. Two days a week for those who can practically do it is a real win for workers, and that's why we in the Greens have put forward a work-from-home bill in this parliament to do just that. Labor said they will always back your right to work from home. Well, this is Labor's chance to give workers some legal backing, for those workers who really struggle to get their boss to say yes to the flexibility that is practically doable and will make such a difference to workers in doing their jobs. It's a massive pay increase in terms of savings on fuels and tolls. That would give immediate cost-of-living relief and take pressure off fuel supplies so that those who really need that fuel in our regions, our farmers, can fill up and regional servos aren't running dry. The Greens will always stand with workers for flexibility and the chance to work from home where you can. This government needs to step up and help ordinary people with the costs that they're facing and the flexibility they need and to meet the cost of the fuel crisis. (Time expired) Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 50 13:48 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I was shocked but not surprised when I read this morning's Sydney Morning Herald headline: 'Chalmers' razor gang eyes cuts to legal services for DV victims'. It is a disgraceful headline. We are not three months into 2026, and already 16 women have been murdered. To even contemplate cutting funding for domestic violence victims-survivors is reprehensible. Government backbenchers rightly celebrate on social media that this is a majority-female government, but representation means nothing if these same Labor women turn around and vote for a budget that abandons the women, the victims-survivors that this country is failing every single day. This government needs to not just speak about its commitment to supporting women but act on it. The Treasurer says that he will be making some tough decisions in the budget. Let me tell you what this government apparently considers a better use of your taxpayer dollars than protecting women fleeing domestic violence. In December, Australia sent $1.5 billion to the United States for AUKUS submarines that we'll never get. While I've been speaking, $30,000 of your money has gone straight to coal and gas companies. I'm not joking. There is $16.3 billion in subsidies a year, which is $30,000 a minute, being handed to companies that are killing our planet and getting rich by doing it. This is what you get from a PM who describes women like Grace Tame as 'difficult'. Perhaps all women centred policies get that label from this government. A spokesman for Minister Rowland from the Attorney-General's office told the Sydney MorningHerald: The government will not pre-empt the outcomes of funding decisions made in the budget … Well, if the minister cannot do anything about this, she should resign. (Time expired) Economy 51 13:50 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The reason it's so important to get your house in order is that you never know what is just around the corner, and inflation data that was released this week hammered home the point that the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, made just a week ago, which is that inflation in this country has not been tamed. It is not mission accomplished. That's why the RBA has been forced to deliver its 14th interest rate rise under Labor. The cost-of-living crisis that has persisted for so long continues under this government. In four years, Australians have experienced the biggest fall in their living standards in the developed world. Inflation is higher in Australia than it is in every major advanced economy, and that inflation is being driven not by events overseas but by decisions made here, in Canberra. Government spending is at a 40-year high, outside of a recession, and that spending is keeping inflation higher for longer. Every economist will agree that, when inflation stays high, interest rates stay high. Higher government spending equals higher inflation, which equals higher interest rates, and Australians are paying the price. The government has no plan to deal with inflation. It has no plan to do its fair share of the heavy lifting to get inflation under control. We now have a crisis in the Middle East. That's feeding the fuel inflation fire. Here's the problem: the economy was already weak, and, in four years, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has failed to tame inflation. He's presided over a collapse in the standard of living. He's seen 14 interest rate rises, and Australians were already hurting. Now fuel supplies aren't guaranteed, and rather than manage the crisis the government has lost control. Rather than delivering a plan Minister Bowen, the man who's overseen the 40 per cent rise in energy prices, now has delivered more pain to Australians—real pain for families, real pain for businesses. Fuel 51 13:52 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales Labor is now holding its second national crisis meeting to deal with the fuel crisis it denied existed for weeks. Yet once again Labor is showing it's too weak, too slow and too out of touch to do what is needed to ease the pain Australian families are feeling. One Nation has been leading on this issue, because we understand what is at stake for everyday Australians, for our farmers, for our transport workers and for the families who are already struggling to make ends meet. The federal government, the Albanese Labor government, already has the power under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act to step in, as One Nation has called for, and direct supply, prioritise essential users and make sure this crisis does not spiral further out of control. Minister Chris Bowen should act now. Waiting until businesses are shut, supermarket prices rise even further and supply chains disintegrate is negligence. Regional Australians will be hit first and hardest. Farmers need diesel to harvest, freight operators need fuel to keep goods moving, and small businesses cannot survive if the cost keeps exploding. When rural industries suffer, every Australian pays more at the check-out, every family pays more for dinner and everyone feels more pain. Labor is talking tough by moving to increase penalties for misconduct and cartel behaviour from $50 million to $100 million, which is great, but bigger penalties alone will not fix an immediate supply crisis, because these large fuel corporations can treat these fines as just the cost of doing business while Australians are left to pay the real cost. What we need is real action. The government must use the powers it already has to secure fuel for essential industries, protect regional Australia and stop this crisis from getting worse. One Nation has put forward the solution. We have the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act. If this is not an emergency, it is hard to imagine what an emergency actually looks like. For farmers, this is an emergency. For people who cannot get the fuel they need to get to work, this is an emergency. For our hospitals who need to run diesel generators if the power goes out, this is an emergency. So please act like it's an emergency. Asylum Seekers 51 13:54 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This week, I was so lucky to meet with three refugees from Iran, who have been part of our communities for years as our neighbours, workmates, colleagues and friends. It shocks people to know that, even with all the violence in Iran right now, the Labor government is refusing to give them permanent protection. It's saying that, regardless of the danger, they must return to Iran. Today, I want to read into parliament their words. Wasim said: 'We were held in Nauru for five years. It was such a hard and traumatic time because people lost their lives, children lost their education. I was sent there when I was 11 and was held there until 2018. After all these years, all I'm asking as a person that considers this country to be home is to have a permanent visa so that I can start to build my life like a normal human being.' Ferdos said: 'I arrived in Australia at 10 years old, and now at 23 this is the only home I know. I remain on a bridging visa that expires every six months, living with constant fear of deportation. This uncertainty has placed my dream of becoming a human rights lawyer on hold. All my family and I are asking for is permanent protection, the chance to live with stability and dignity. We're part of Australia in every way except on paper.' Rahman said: 'After fleeing Iran in 2013 I was forcibly sent to Nauru for three years. I've now spent more than 10 years living in this community, yet I'm still considered temporary. I'm a father of two. While one of my children is an Australian citizen, the other has no permanent status and faces the terrifying possibility of being deported back to Iran. There are hundreds of families like mine trapped in this limbo. All we're asking for is the security of a permanent home and the safety of our children.' On behalf of the Greens, can I say I join with Wasim, Ferdos and Rahman. They are incredibly positive parts of our community, contributing in their workplaces and in their communities, and the Greens join with them to say to the Labor government that if you care about the people of Iran there are hundreds you can help right now by giving permanent protection to. Middle East 52 13:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria In recent weeks, Israel has killed more than 1,100 civilians in Lebanon and displaced more than a million people. They are systematically destroying housing, roads, bridges, water systems and hospitals. They are killing health workers in double tap strikes. Just as we saw in Gaza, they are using white phosphorous which causes severe bones that often reach the bone and can spontaneously reignite. Israeli ministers are openly calling for annexation. They want to colonise south Lebanon and turn it into the new Gaza. How does this Labor government respond to this violence, invasion and clear breach of international law? Minister Wong offers some meaningless words of concern while Labor continues material support for the Israeli military, supplies intelligence from Pine Gap and deploys Australian personnel and military equipment to support violence in the region. Meanwhile, IDF members are still being let into the country to holiday here while there is an active case in the International Court of Justice on Israel conducting genocide and while Iranian people with legitimate visas are being blocked. Netanyahu acts with impunity because his allies, including this Labor government, refuse to take any real action. This comes as we hear horrific reports that Israeli soldiers tortured a two-year-old in Gaza to extract information from his father, as strikes and killings in Gaza and the West Bank continue. Labor must immediately end all military cooperation with Israel and stop supporting this violence. I stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in Lebanon. (Time expired) Early Childhood Education and Care 52 13:58 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia I recently had the opportunity to visit Goodstart Early Learning Centre in East Bunbury, and I want to take a moment to thank Kerryn, Sally and Jessica for showing me around their wonderful centre and to thank the kids who so kindly gifted me a clock that they had decorated which sits proudly on the wall in my office. It's not every day in this job that you get the chance to sit down and play with some Play-Doh and talk about The Tiger Who Came to Tea with our youngest Australians, but it was an absolute highlight of my week. Seeing the absolute adoration these kids had for their early childhood educators reminded me of that same love that I see in my own son when I take him into early childcare in Perth. Like so many families, my family well and truly relies on child care and the amazing work that those educators do. That's why I'm so proud of Labor's cheaper childcare plan. We have guaranteed three days of early childcare for every Australian family, which means that kids at a centre like East Bunbury get the opportunity to experience that same education and care. What is really clear to me is that early childhood educators right across this country deserve every single cent of the pay rise that our Labor government has delivered to them. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for the debate has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Fuel Security 52 14:00 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, as reported by the ABC, S-Bend service station, which is 30 kilometres south of Geraldton in my home state of Western Australia, ran out of diesel. They made an emergency fuel request, with employee Wendy Butterworth telling the ABC: We had to really plead, to say that we're in the position where we're the only outlet that can supply fuel in the 60-kilometre radius. She said the supplier was only able to provide half of what the fuel station needed. It will now be 'touch and go' if the allocation will last, she said. This is happening as families across regional Western Australia prepare for possible power outages and severe weather events ahead of Cyclone Narelle. Minister, how has the Albanese government allowed the fuel crisis to get so bad that regional Australians are being forced to beg for diesel just to keep generators running in an emergency? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, in relation to Cyclone Narelle, the government will continue to provide support and assistance as necessary for natural disasters. I know that my colleague Senator McCarthy may be able to say something about that later, in the context of her communities. But what I do want to respond to is, obviously, what is happening on fuel and the station in question that the senator referred to. We are dealing with a continuing and unprecedented shock to global energy markets. It is the largest in history. The government are taking practical action, and we will take more. I will say, as I started to outline yesterday, that the conflict is likely—should it continue—to impact on our economy in direct and indirect ways. It's presenting challenges to regional communities, including the petrol station that you describe. It's presenting challenges to industries. It's presenting challenges to global markets. What we do say is we need to work together, and the government have acted already to release up to 20 per cent of our diesel fuel reserves to work to address regional shortages. We've amended fuel standards to keep more fuel made here in Australia for Australians to use. We've stood up a fuel supply taskforce in the Prime Minister's department, and the Prime Minister has convened National Cabinet to work together on fuel security, and that work will continue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister guarantee that a tanker will be dispatched to the S-Bend service station today with enough fuel to meet their requirements? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We will continue to work with states and territories on— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Come to order on my left! The minister was on her feet. Senator WONG 00AOU We will continue to work with states, territories and companies on distribution, including—now that you have raised that, I will ensure that is communicated to the minister's office. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:03 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Minister, do you still believe that the fuel crisis in Australia is nothing but 'far-right extremist scaremongering', as Minister Ayres has suggested? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I certainly have seen a fair bit of scaremongering lately. That is true. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Minister Wong. Order! I've asked for order across the chamber. Senator Cash I0M Can you drive a tanker— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've called for order and I'm waiting for order— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! I don't intend to call individual senators by their names. If I've called for order, there should be enough respect that you stop. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU What I hope is that all of us can have the sort of responsible, disciplined, adult approach to this that the country needs, and that is the approach this government will be taking. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 53 14:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 16th delegation from the Philippines, led by the honourable congresswoman Charisse Anne Hernandez. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Fuel Security 54 14:05 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Iran is holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, attacking or threatening to attack merchant and civilian vessels and putting the lives of seafarers at risk. Can the minister explain how Iran's dangerous and destabilising actions are impacting global energy markets and Australia's energy supply chains? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for his question, and I also express my welcome to our friends from the Philippines. Whilst conflict in the Middle East is sadly not a new development, the world has never before seen the Strait of Hormuz choked like this. As we know, the strait is one of the word's most important trade passages. It would normally carry around 20 million barrels of oil per day, but, due to Iran's weaponisation of the strait, we are now seeing less than 10 per cent of that get through—10 per cent. The majority of Australia's refined fuel comes from the Asian market, which is heavily exposed to Middle Eastern supply. This is how we are being affected, through the knock-on effect from the reduction in supply to the refineries of Asia, from where we get our liquid fuel supplies. That is what we are feeling domestically. Many Australians have seen Iran's attacks on the strait and its threats to set fuel tankers ablaze and have rushed out to stock up on petrol. We understand why. There has been a huge surge in demand, even before those knock-on effects fully arrived on our shores. We've all seen the videos online of drums being filled up with petrol and of jerry cans flying off the shelves. That is why the government has been urging Australians to try to only use what they need. That surge in demand, combined with logistical challenges across the supply chain, is now contributing to instances where petrol stations run out of fuel. We understand the scale of this problem. We understand the depth of feeling across Australia. It is why the government has acted early and why we are focused on it—why we are determined to support houses and businesses through this uncertainty. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dowling, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania As the minister has said, Australians are seeing petrol stations experience temporary shortages due to increased demand, and they are understandably concerned about access and affordability. What message does the government have for households who are worried about this unprecedented disruption in the Middle East, and what does that mean for their day-to-day lives? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Australian government is looking at every practical measure to shield Australians from the worst of this global uncertainty, and we understand that there are many Australians who are being impacted, particularly in regional Australia. The Prime Minister has advised that National Cabinet will convene again next week to further coordinate activity we are taking to ensure national consistency. Our refineries here in Australia are operating at full pelt, and we are making sure fuel made here is used here in Australia. We've released 20 per cent of our diesel and fuel reserves to help address regional shortages and we've amended fuel standards to get more into the market. The new Fuel Supply Taskforce is driving coordination across the country on fuel security and supply chain resilience. We know there is more to do, and our message to Australians is this: the Albanese government will do everything we can to help you access the fuel you need. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dowling, second supplementary? 14:09 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania Minister, as you've indicated, Iran's attacks and its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz are affecting global energy markets and our partners in Asia. Can the minister provide an update on Australia's international engagement and what we are doing with international partners to respond to the situation? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator. The government have spent every day since we came to office working to strengthen our international relationships, particularly in our region. We're working together to respond to this unprecedented shock to the global economy, including by engaging with the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, China, India and Japan. Earlier this week, Australia and Singapore agreed to a joint statement to strengthen energy supply-chain resilience and help ensure the continued flow of essential fuels. As Minister Bowen has outlined, the six ships he reported had been cancelled have now been replaced, and suppliers are continuing to secure more cargoes, with three more this week. The Albanese government is focused on ensuring Australia gets the supplies we need, including petrol, diesel and fertiliser, and that those supplies can get where they are needed. Waste Management and Recycling 55 14:10 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is also to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The ABC has reported that waste industry leaders across Australia, including the Waste Recycling Industry Association in my home state of Queensland, have warned Minister Bowen that hospitals, aged-care homes, supermarkets and households depend on continuous waste removal and that public health problems could begin within 48 hours if collections stop. They say being left off the priority fuel list is 'potentially catastrophic' because, if they cannot fuel their trucks, the rubbish does not get collected. Why did Labor leave this essential public health service off the priority fuel list? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Issues with fuel impact throughout our economy. There are first-round effects, and there are downstream effects. We know that our response of how we deal with what is happening in Iran has to reflect the impact that this crisis has on fuel throughout the economy. We are very aware of that. So what I would say to you, Senator, is that I can give you an assurance that the government is working through how we seek not only to obtain more supply where we can, to shore up supply as much as we can, but also to understand the effects of this global shock throughout our economy, including in the areas you have outlined. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, first supplementary? 14:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, these effects, as you call them, are being called 'potentially catastrophic'. Will the Labor government fix this today by adding waste collection to the priority fuel-user list immediately? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm obviously not the minister representing, but I will give you the answer that I can, Senator Scarr, and if I need to add to it I will. If you are referring to the determination that is current, it does only include ambulance services, corrective services, fire, rescue, police, public transport, state emergency services and taxi services. It was made in March 2019 by Mr Taylor. If this determination needs to be amended, obviously we will. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, second supplementary? 14:14 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, we're talking about a fuel crisis in 2026, not what the case was in 2019. How can Australians have confidence in this government's handling of the fuel crisis when it has become so bad that even keeping the bins emptied and rubbish collected is now in doubt? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, again I would say to you that I have outlined in my answer to questions from Senator Dowling some of the measures we are taking. I have indicated to you that we recognise there are more measure that will need to be taken, and we will deal with that responsibly and soberly. We need to both deal with seeking to shore up supply—I've described how we are seeking to do that—but also recognise the ways in which any disruption to supply flows throughout the economy, including the industries you outlined. The government will be very cognisant of that. Cybersafety 55 14:15 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, which I believe is Senator Farrell. Today a US jury has found Meta and Google liable for deliberately designing addictive social media platforms that led to harm for users. It is now undeniable that these multibillion-dollar companies are making massive profits off products that are deliberately designed to be addictive, to generate division and to spread mis- and disinformation. These products are used every day by millions of Australians of all ages and backgrounds. Eighteen months ago, your government committed to ensuring that these toxic platforms were prevented from harming users by legislating a digital duty of care, yet we are still waiting. Why is your government failing to act to keep Australians safe? 14:16 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question. Senator Hanson-Young, I think the federal Albanese Labor government has been world-leading in some of the issues that you have just referred to and some of the issues that were dealt with in the court case overnight that you referred to. I am pleased to say that the early leadership on that issue in fact came from the Premier of South Australia, Mr Peter Malinauskas, when he suggested that we needed to move in this space to protect young people from— Senator Hanson-Young I0U What about all Australians? Senator FARRELL I0N Well, you referred to the decision overnight. My understanding of that decision is that it relates to penalties against Google and Meta for addictive actions of their platforms. Of course, the world-leading action that the Albanese government sought to take against these companies, very much against the wishes of these companies, has now resulted in a whole host of other countries— Senator FARRELL I0N You've talked about this decision overnight. You've asked that question. I am talking about some of the things that the world-leading Albanese Labor government has done. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary? 14:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia When will the minister start prioritising the wellbeing and safety of all Australians over multibillion-dollar tech giants and ensure that all users can opt out of toxic algorithms and turn that hate off? 14:18 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her first supplementary question. We've got an excellent minister in this space. We have been leading the way. There is a whole host of ways in which we are projecting ordinary Australians, particularly— Senator Hanson-Young I0U Big tech is laughing at you. Senator FARRELL I0N I'm not laughing, Senator Hanson-Young. I'm taking your question seriously, so I would object to that reference to laughing. I should say kumusta to my friends from the Philippines. It's great to see you here. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N My wife comes from the Philippines. I'm entitled to greet the people of the Philippines. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary? 14:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia That was like watching a boomer try and work out how to like and not like on Instagram. Minister, could you please explain— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Come to order on my right! I'm waiting for silence. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Isn't it true, Minister, that the reason your government won't take the action that's required on big tech, who are now the new big tobacco, is that you don't want to upset Donald Trump? 14:21 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I refuse to take advantage of your youth and inexperience, Senator Hanson-Young. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Come to order! I do need to hear Minister Farrell's answer. Senator FARRELL I0N Senator Hanson-Young, I do take a drug for my diabetes called Ozempic, and, amongst other things, it's an anti-ageing drug. I am now five years younger than when I first started taking it. Senator Hanson-Young, we are not afraid of Donald Trump. The answer specifically to your question is no. Fertiliser 56 14:22 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. Global energy markets and supply chains are disrupted due to the war in the Middle East, and these disruptions include the international market for fertilisers. The Middle Eastern production makes up a large share of the global total, and natural gas from the Middle East is a key feedstock for production elsewhere. In the face of these ongoing disruptions and shocks to global supply chains, the Albanese Labor government remains focused on our national resilience and sovereign capability. Minister, what is the status of Australia's fertiliser market? 14:22 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Stewart, for that question. Of course, the conflict in the Middle East is not just an unprecedented shock for global energy markets. There are a series of other commodities that make their way through the Strait of Hormuz or are affected by global energy markets. This is particularly the case for fertiliser-grade urea. Australia relies on imports of fertiliser-grade urea for more than 65 per cent of our total demand. Industry has advised that near-term planting demand for urea is largely covered, but the risks to the Australian agriculture sector will increase the longer disruption continues. We have strong trade relationships and experienced fertiliser distributors, with whom the government is working closely. Importers and officials from the government have been exploring, over the course of the period since the conflict began, contingency sources of fertiliser-grade urea, such as in South-East Asia, but the global nature of this shock means that spare production is likely limited. We are less import dependent for ammonium nitrate and ammonium phosphate fertilisers. The purchase of Phosphate Hill has secured the future of Australia's only manufacturer of MAP and DAP fertilisers. My department is also engaging on the shutdowns at the Yara Pilbara facility—which we've been advised will only last for eight weeks but will allow the firm to bring forward elements of a planned June-July shutdown—and the shutdown at Kooragang Island, which Orica has advised will be resolved shortly. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:24 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The Albanese Labor government has been working closely with industry, peak bodies and the states since the war in the Middle East began. What engagement is the government undertaking with farmers, importers, producers and the states? 14:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales (): Thanks, Senator Stewart, for that question. I neglected to say that in the gallery are representatives of Science Meets Parliament—scores of Australian scientists representing tens of thousands of scientists in Australia's research and development sector. You are so welcome to the parliament. I thank Senator Stewart for that question. Minister Collins met yesterday with more than 50 representatives from industry, including Fertilizer Australia and GrainGrowers. Ministers Bowen and Collins and I met the National Farmers' Federation and fertiliser industry representatives, and Minister Collins, the industry and the ACCC are working on allowing the fertiliser sector to coordinate to ensure that fertiliser gets to where it is needed. My department is engaged on all of these issues and is providing information to the Fuel Security Taskforce. Fertiliser importers—I'll get to conclude this, I suppose— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The Albanese Labor government has prioritised strengthening Australia's sovereign capability. How has the government's Future Made in Australia agenda made Australia more resilient to global events? 14:26 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales (—) (): Of course, the measures that we've undertaken in fuel mean that we have that shock absorber there in terms of the minimum stockholding obligation, and Minister Bowen has released 20 per cent of that. Those options were not available to previous governments. A Future Made in Australia is all about making Australia stronger. The intervention to secure 3,000 jobs yesterday at Boyne Island in Central Queensland makes Australia stronger. The intervention in Glencore at Mount Isa makes Australia stronger. That intervention and our gas reservation announcement securing the purchase of Phosphate Hill and domestic fertiliser production make Australia stronger. The interventions in Nyrstar Hobart and Port Pirie, particularly for critical minerals and metal smelting, make Australia stronger. Our intervention in the steel industry to protect the steel industry, which those opposite never would have protected, makes Australia stronger. (Time expired) Donations to Political Parties 57 14:27 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister McCarthy. I have seen that you are selling tickets to a Labor Party business event in Sydney on 9 April, offering corporate bigwigs access to you over afternoon tea for a cool $4,000 a head. Research from the Australia Institute found the majority of people agree these cash-for-access events amount to corrupt conduct and that politicians should refuse to participate in them. Will you cancel this event to reflect community expectations and avoid public perception that the Minister for Indigenous Australians is engaging in corrupt conduct? 14:28 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the question. I too was very curious to see the article in the Sydney Morning Herald this week about an event which I'm very pleased to attend in terms of meeting stakeholders in New South Wales. I think it's really important to move beyond the areas that I know really well, in terms of northern Australia, to have some time with stakeholders in New South Wales. I think it's certainly important to be able to do that. We have talked about fundraising in this parliament, and we know that each of us needs to look at that in terms of what we are trying to do to support those we are here to support. So thank you for the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria This event is priced at $4,000, intentionally just below the disclosure threshold, meaning the identities of your cashed up guests will not be revealed. Will you commit to voluntarily publishing who you meet at this event so mob and the public can see who is being sold access to you? 14:29 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I always do my best to work within the disclosure rules. I think that's why we have them, in terms of being able to reveal what we need to transparently, and it's expected of me as a minister in this government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:30 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria We know that grassroots organisations often struggle to get a meeting with you. Will you use the time you've set aside on 9 April for this lobbyist meeting to instead meet with some of the many grassroots administrations and mob who are waiting to meet with you? 14:30 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I think that's a really grubby imputation of your question, Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 I have a point of order on relevance, on calling my comment grubby—you would have called it on me! I'm just saying. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, that's not a point of order. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I certainly meet with as many stakeholders as possible, not just here in Canberra but right across the country. And, if I can't meet personally, I try to meet online or with phone calls. My staff are very diligent in trying to reach out to everyone who contacts my office, and I do appreciate the work of my team. But it's not only my office but right across the cabinet and my colleagues who try to assist with stakeholders, Senator Thorpe. I think you know that very well. Fuel 58 14:32 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Ports are warning trade could grind to a halt unless fuel is urgently prioritised. More than 200 electrical apprentices have been stood down. Vegetable growers are reducing production, rural doctors are holding crisis meetings over fears patients will be left untreated. Public servants are being told to work from home where possible. Federal Police have been directed to change how they drive and when they refuel. Minister, how did this government allow the fuel crisis to escalate to the point where it is now disrupting trade, jobs, food supply, health services and frontline operations across Australia? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I outlined in my earlier answers, what we are facing is the largest shock we have seen to global energy markets. This is an issue that is reverberating throughout the global economy, and countries across the world are grappling with it, which is why we continue to call on Iran to stop holding the— Senator McKim JKM You should tell the US and Israel to stop. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, I will take your interjection. I listened to you very carefully yesterday, and, even if you disagree with the conflict, you could at least call on Iran to de-escalate and to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I have Senator Cash on her feet. Senator Cash I0M I think it's pretty obvious it's a point of order in relation to direct relevance. It is the opposition's question, with all due respect. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do appreciate it's the opposition's question, but, as you know, interjections can be taken, and— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I try very hard to maintain order in this place, but, if senators interject, it's up to the minister to take or not take that interjection. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm very happy to come back to the question; I'm just making the point—and I would have thought the opposition would agree—that it would be good if the Greens occasionally called on Iran to de-escalate. But I will come back to your question, Senator Liddle. It is a global shock to energy markets, and Australia is being affected. We are taking action to seek to deal with it, and we will look at every practical measure that is required to shield Australia from the worst of this global uncertainty. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia An AUSVEG survey of 150 growers found 27 per cent had reduced or stopped planting, 13 per cent were considering it and growers cutting back had done so by an average of 30 per cent, while 19 per cent had decided not to harvest existing crops because of soaring costs and supply uncertainty. AUSVEG warns the impact on consumers will be felt immediately. Minister, how can your government claim this crisis is under control when Australian families are staring down higher prices and less fresh food on supermarket shelves? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I again say that this is a global energy shock, and it is having, and could have, effects throughout the Australian economy. We understand that, which is why we have taken action, including introducing legislation around false and misleading conduct of petrol companies, convening National Cabinet—and the Prime Minister has indicated he will call another National Cabinet for Monday—appointing the Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator, beginning the release of 20 per cent of our fuel reserves, changing petrol standards to get more fuel flowing, changing diesel standards so our refineries can buy more fuel, tasking the ACCC with fuel price monitoring, engaging with international partners to keep supply flowing and more. As I said, we will look at every practical measure required to shield Australians from the worst of this global uncertainty. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, second supplementary? 14:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Does your government still believe that the fuel crisis in Australia is nothing but far-right extremist scaremongering, as Minister Ayres told the Senate earlier this month? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think I have outlined quite a number of times to the Senate, during question times since the conflict began, the nature of the conflict and the nature of the fuel crisis, which is a global shock to energy markets—the largest in history. I again remind Australians, and remind you, Senator, that it is true that the Strait of Hormuz supplies 20 per cent of the world's oil—that in itself is a very large amount—but it supplies the majority of the crude oil going to the refineries of Asia, and the refineries of Asia are where we get our liquid fuels from. That is an explanation of how the knock-on effects in global markets are affecting us. We are very realistic about that. We are very sober about that, and we are taking responsible steps to do all we can to shield Australians from the worst of this uncertainty. Fuel 59 14:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Australia is in a fuel crisis. Big oil companies, like BP, Ampol, Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil, control fuel held at import terminals and how much is released to the spot market supplying independents that service the regions. Big oil is squeezing these suppliers, forcing regional service stations to raise prices. At the same time, big oil owns many service stations, mainly in the city, and is using regional price rises as an excuse to start gouging at their own outlets. Big oil is strangling regional independents and using those price hikes to justify price gouging in the city. If the government declared a fuel emergency under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984, it could force supply to the regions and stop the gouging. Will you declare an emergency to stop this extortion at the bowser, as One Nation has called for? 14:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Hanson. It is the case that this conflict in the Middle East is an unprecedented shock. I think the IEA director-general was here during the week, and he said that it was, in his view, the largest in history. We are taking every practical action that is open to the government. We are aware, of course, of the powers that are in that act from the early 1980s, and we have regard to all of those questions in terms of our approach. Our judgment is that the practical action that we are undertaking now, including in relation to the ACCC's powers in these hours, is the most effective approach. We have to work together—government, the petroleum industry, including the retailers and distributors, industry more broadly, farmers, miners, the manufacturing sector and the construction industry all working together to deliver the right result. We've already acted to release up to 20 per cent of our diesel and fuel reserves—that is, reserves that otherwise would not have been available but for the actions of this government—as a shock absorber for the Australian economy. In our judgment it was the right thing to do to release 20 per cent, to relieve some of those pressures in distribution chains, particularly, as you point out, in regional Australia, where independent retailers struggle to secure supply in the spot market, in a market that has been constructed historically to provide for the maximum competition. We've given the ACCC new teeth, and we have also lifted the powers of the ACCC that prevent the companies working together to secure supply in a cooperative way. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a first supplementary? 14:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, you claimed there's no shortage of fuel in the country, yet farmers in regional areas can't get diesel to plant crops, keep animals alive and get food transported to supply the cities. Does the minister foresee any impediments to the production, processing and transport of crucial food items into the retail market? 14:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As I indicated earlier this week and last week, this is a very significant event in the Middle East. It means that we have a very significant impact on our economy, in direct and indirect ways, and, the longer this conflict goes on, the harder those effects are going to be for the economy to deal with. The minimum stockholding obligation that we imposed and implemented in the Australian economy means that there is that shock absorber. Releasing 20 per cent means that more fuel has been available, and that has had a useful impact. We are not complacent about that; we are continuing to work with the ACCC, and we appointed the Fuel Supply Taskforce, led by Anthea Harris. The government is very focused on these supply questions, particularly in regional Australia— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a second supplementary? 14:42 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, your government will collect $300 million extra a month in GST on fuel off the back of the price gouging that is going on. One Nation is calling on you to cut the fuel excise fully for three months and/or cut the GST on fuel, which is a tax on a tax, and relieve pressure off Australians. 14:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales This government, as I've indicated, has taken action over the course of the period since the conflict and hostilities in the Middle East began. We've introduced new laws to double penalties for false and misleading conduct up to $100 million; convened National Cabinet; appointed a national Fuel Supply Taskforce, led by one of our most experienced energy officials; began the release of 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves so that shock absorber can get to work; changed petrol standards to get more fuel flowing; and made it easier for Australian refineries to access government funding when they run at a loss so that we're not seeing the closure of more Australian refinery capacity, which is what we saw under those opposite. Senator Hanson BK6 I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked a direct question about cutting the fuel excise and the GST. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Hansen. I will continue to listen carefully and, if he isn't, I'll draw his attention to your question. Senator AYRES 16913 We've introduced new laws so that the Fair Work Commission can demand companies pay truckies fairly when fuel prices spike. I want to see what you and your colleagues do, Senator Hansen, in relation to those laws that mean truckies get a fair deal. (Time expired) Disaster and Emergency Management 60 14:44 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Northern Australia has been experiencing successive and compounding natural disasters this wet season. It has disproportionately affected First Nations Australians living in remote communities. Many communities across north Australia have been cut off and entire communities remain in evacuation centres. What support is the Albanese Labor government providing to affected remote and First Nations communities, and how are the initiatives of the government supporting those communities dealing with the effects of these natural disasters? 14:44 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Cox. I know you understand Western Australia very well, and I'm looking forward to being with you on the weekend over there in WA as well. It's certainly been an incredibly difficult wet season, and we can certainly see where Tropical Cyclone Narelle is now in Western Australia. Across northern Australia we've seen its pathway. We've faced successive natural disasters—cyclones, flooding and now renewed river rises—following on from Cyclone Narelle. Our focus is on keeping people safe and making sure no-one is left behind. More than 1,000 people have been evacuated from remote communities in the Northern Territory, like Numbulwar, Nauiyu, Daly River, Jilkminggan and Palumpa—many for the second time in just a matter of weeks. Jilkminggan, near Mataranka, and Beswick, near Katherine, have also gone under, and also Katherine. I want to acknowledge, too, the communities in Far North Queensland, from Coen to Aurukun, who've been impacted, and those in Western Australia who are now preparing for the re-intensified Cyclone Narelle. This has been an incredibly distressing experience for these communities—to be forced from your home and to not know what you will return to—and that takes a real toll on people's lives. I also want to recognise the extraordinary efforts of the Australian Defence Force. ADF personnel have been on the ground and in the air evacuating communities and helping move people to safety. Alongside them are volunteers, emergency services and local workers who have shown incredible care and commitment. In Katherine, we've stood up a 24/7 AUSMAT field hospital to ensure people have access to emergency and essential health care, and that includes a fully operational emergency department and maternity services making sure care continues. At the same time, we're supporting communities not just through the immediate response but through resilience. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, first supplementary? 14:47 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia This wet season has shown the challenges of life in remote communities, particularly in relation to food resilience. What measures has the Albanese Labor government put in place to support First Nations communities in remote Australia to ensure continued access to food supplies? 14:47 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Cox. Well, our resilience packages have meant more funding for remote stores across the country to upgrade things like storage and refrigeration and to install solar panels. These resilience packages are having an impact, but don't take it from me. Dion Kelly, chair of the Lajamanu Progress Aboriginal Corporation, said: 'The food resilience grant has made a real difference for our community of Lajamanu this wet season. For the last three years, we've had to fly all of our goods in from Darwin during the wet season. Now that the store has a larger warehouse and new freezer, we can hold up to 10 weeks of stock. This keeps our food security strong during the toughest months of the wet season.' I'm proud we've announced that 75 additional remote stores right across Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and South Australia will now be able to apply for these improvements. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary? 14:48 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia What role are participants in the Albanese Labor government remote jobs program playing in supporting our communities during this wet season while building greater resilience in remote communities? 14:48 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Our jobs and rangers programs are central to building more resilience in remote communities. During Cyclone Fina in Warruwi, the RJED workers, with the Yagbani Aboriginal Corporation, were out with the chainsaws in the clean-up. Likewise, during Cyclone Narelle, the Nyirrunggulung-RISE participants were assisting the Roper Gulf Regional Council in recovery efforts. Our Commonwealth funded Yirralka rangers have been clearing the road to Garrthalala in Arnhem Land in the last few days. Our RJED Vic-Daly night patrol workers have partnered with the Larrakia nation in Darwin to provide extra patrols around the evacuation centres. This is happening now, on the ground—workers in jobs, rebuilding and supporting their communities and assisting everyone in these times of absolute crisis during these floods. These policies that our government has implemented are working, and I'm so proud that we're doubling the number of jobs that we're providing in remote communities to an incredible 6,000 jobs by 2030, backed by a $299 million investment. (Time expired) Fuel 61 14:49 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, can you guarantee that Australia will not run out of fuel supplies? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, what I have said is that we will do all that we can to shield Australians from the worst of this global uncertainty. You are someone who does understand the global implications of this on the global economy, and you would know that this is a shock to global energy markets that we have not seen. You would understand the importance of us working together—government; the opposition, I would hope, though it's a matter for them; community; business; and the states and territories—to deal with the global circumstances that we are navigating, as all countries of the world are. I also have great confidence in Australia and Australians' capacity to navigate these crises. If you look back at our history, whether it's the global financial crisis or COVID, you see that we are a country that has sound policy-making, the capacity to coordinate well between private and public sectors and the capacity for communities to be part of responding to changed circumstances. Again I would say we will do what is required and all that we can to shield Australians from the worst of this uncertainty. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Minister, can you guarantee that Australians won't be forced to ration fuel supplies? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Matters of supply and also of distribution are matters that governments, including through the National Cabinet, are looking at and will continue to look at or act upon. We have acted upon supply measures. We will continue to look at practical measures. We will ensure that we work, through National Cabinet, with the states and territories and though the existing taskforce to look at what is required to deliver fuel to where it is needed, when it is needed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Minister, on what date will prices reduce to preconflict levels? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Colbeck, I generally have more regard for you than that question would engender. You know, and everybody should know, that the reality of higher fuel prices is being felt across the world. This is being felt across the world. As the Treasurer has said recently, as has the Prime Minister, we also know that global markets will not go back to how they were prior to this conflict upon the conflict ending. There is a tail of effects throughout the global economy. You know that, Senator, and you also know that the way we have to deal with it is with the sorts of measures that you are seeing, including the legislation that's coming forward, and also by working to stabilise global energy markets and to look for the supply— (Time expired) Road Transport Industry 62 14:53 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My questioning is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, our road transport industry is vital to keeping our nation's economy moving, as I know better than anyone. The conflict in the Middle East is having an impact on input costs for our hardworking truck drivers and our road industry businesses. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting truckies to get a fair go, and what other measures is the government supporting to help Australians with current cost-of-living pressures? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks to Senator Sterle, who certainly knows more than most in this chamber about the needs of truckies around Australia. The truth is that without truckies and their drivers, the movement of essential supplies across Australia stops. That's why we want truckies to get a fair go. It's why the Albanese government has passed significant reforms to ensure that our road transport industry is strong and resilient for Australia's future. We're cracking down on sham contracting, and we increased the penalties for employers who dodge their obligations to their employees. Unlike the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation, who oppose those changes, the Albanese Labor government has always backed our trucking industry and the workers who are delivering essential goods across Australia. Under the current legislation, the Fair Work Commission must consult for a minimum of six months when setting contract chain orders, which ensure that truckies get safe and secure rates of pay. This government recognises that with the ongoing war in the Middle East resulting in volatile fuel prices, the commission needs the power to respond more quickly to contract chain order applications to ensure that trucking companies and owner-operators are not left to absorb these costs on their own. In good news for the industry, this Labor government is taking swift and decisive action to do exactly this. Earlier this week, we announced that we will be introducing an amendment to the Fair Work Act to establish an urgent pathway for truckies to argue for their fair share at the Fair Work Commission. This is so truckies and transport operators aren't left to worry about managing rising costs on their own. It's critical that the costs of rising fuel prices are shared fairly throughout the supply chain so our truckies and transport businesses can remain viable. Next week, when this legislation comes on for debate, we'll get to see how much the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are actually willing to help Australians who are facing fuel price rises. They've had a lot to say about it. The question is whether they will act. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Magnificent, Minister! I can't wait to watch them all line up to vote for this magnificent piece of legislation. Helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn is a key priority of the Albanese government. How is the government supporting workers to deal with cost-of-living pressures they are facing right now? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Albanese government recognises that the conflict in the Middle East is undoubtedly putting pressure on fuel prices, on inflation and on family budgets. Low-paid workers are more exposed to financial shocks and experience greater financial hardship, and we support lifting their wages as one of the ways to help them. Today, the Albanese government will lodge a submission to the Annual Wage Review, recommending that the Fair Work Commission award an economically sustainable real wage increase to Australia's 2.7 million minimum wage and award-reliant workers, This, along with the tax cuts we provided last year and will again provide this year, is all about helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what earn. We know that previous increases to the minimum wage were opposed by the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation—there's a bit of a theme here, that ragtag coalition. The chance for them is to say that Australian workers deserve an economically sustainable real wage increase. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 14:57 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Workers in low-paid roles work few hours and have fewer financial buffers to fall back on. These workers are more susceptible to cost-of-living challenges, including the rising price of fuel and global uncertainty we currently face. Why is it important that the government support these workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We understand that workers are doing it tough right now, and that's why we think that they should get a sustainable, real wage increase as well. But I'll tell you who isn't doing it tough, and that's Senator Pauline Hanson. She is jetting around the country in her billionaire friend's plane. Starting in Queensland, where she tells workers she's on their side, she heads down to South Australia, where she tells seniors she is fighting for them, and then she gets on the plane over to Canberra, where she votes against higher wages for workers and against cheaper medicines for seniors. Now she says she wants to govern with the Liberal Party. Yesterday, Senator Hanson confirmed Australia's worst kept secret. This former Liberal Party member, who votes with the Liberals more than 80 per cent of the time, confirmed that she would be 'very happy' to use her numbers to help elect a coalition government at the next election. The truth is that the Liberals can't form government without One Nation. One Nation can't form government without the Liberals. They are a ragtag coalition who will hurt Australian workers. Fuel 63 14:59 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The West Australian reported that Lauren Thompson and Jet Wilson are young Western Australians who had planned to drive Melbourne for Easter—that is, until this government's fuel crisis intervened. Ms Thompson said: We're a little bit unsure if we will go because of how much it's going to cost us with the price of fuel at the moment. Minister, what do you say to the Western Australians, and all Australians, that are cancelling Easter because of your government's fuel crisis? 14:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As I indicated in my answers to questions earlier, and as Senator Wong indicated in her answers to questions on very much the same subject, this conflict in the Middle East, and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, is creating a global shock in energy markets around the world. Australia is more prepared and more resilient because of the actions this government has taken, and we continue to act in those areas. We have taken every practical action. We want to make sure that we are prepared for every eventuality. We are aware of the impact that this is having and that the extension of this conflict, if it continues to extend, is having and is likely to have on the Australian economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Minister, Ms Thompson also said: 'We're not sure if there are fuel limitations along the Nullarbor. We don't want to run out of fuel and get stuck.' Minister, you've dismissed warnings about fuel shortages as 'right-wing extremism'. Now, is Ms Thompson spreading right-wing extremism too? 15:01 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, I think, Senator, that what Ms Thompson will be focused on is what practical action the government has undertaken on her behalf and on behalf of Australians. She will know that we have introduced new laws to double penalties— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, you've asked your question. Senator AYRES 16913 for false and misleading conduct to $100 million; convened National Cabinet and will continue to use the National Cabinet to coordinate the government's work with our colleagues in the states and territories; appointed a national fuel supply taskforce coordinator; begun the release of 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves, so the fuel reserves that we established are able to be used in the interests of Australian motorists and Australian industry; and changed petrol standards to get more fuel flowing—all of that action and more, to protect Australians from the worst of this crisis. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Minister, Australians are now worried about their Easter plans and whether they'll be wrecked by higher prices and empty bowsers. Australians have to travel long distances on their holidays. So can you guarantee today that no Australian's Easter plans will be disrupted by this government's fuel crisis? 15:02 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What I can guarantee is that this government will continue to act in the Australian interest—in the interests of Australians and in the interests of Australian industry. The choice you have to make and your colleagues have to make is whether you are going to join the government in acting in the national interest, or whether you'll continue a partisan approach on these questions that diminishes you every single day of the week. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Fuel, Artificial Intelligence 64 15:03 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In question time on Wednesday 11 March, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Canavan in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy relating to fuel. On the same day, I also undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Payman relating to artificial intelligence. Furthermore, on Monday 23 March, I took questions asked of me by Senator Duniam, on notice, in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, also related to fuel. I have written to those senators to provide additional information, and I table these letters for the information of all senators. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I'll just make clear to the Senate that take note is going to be deferred, because we are now moving, pursuant to order, to a bill. BILLS 64 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 64

Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026

First Reading 64 15:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 64 15:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Today, I introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to double maximum penalties for misconduct under competition law and the Australian Consumer Law, from $50 million to $100 million. These laws help tackle price gouging at its source, outlawing: False or misleading representations, including lying about the reason for price increases; Price fixing, colluding on prices, and other cartel behaviour; Misuse of market power to lessen competition, including by refusing to supply to third parties like independent fuel retailers; Unfair contract terms, especially in relation to business-to-business conduct, to stop big business pushing around small and family businesses; Exclusive dealings that reduce competition; and Unconscionable conduct like taking advantage of vulnerable people. The even stronger penalties we are introducing will empower the ACCC to throw the book at any companies who illegally and unfairly increase their prices. Since the start of the war, we have seen much higher prices for petrol and diesel across the country. It has put more pressure on motorists and families already doing it tough. Our message to petrol retailers has been clear: you are on notice; do not use the conflict to take advantage of Australians. Now they'll face penalties up to $100 million per offence if they do. These penalties apply across the economy. This will help ensure all retailers and suppliers, from fuel companies to supermarkets and the entire supply chain in between, do not use the war in the Middle East as an excuse for illegal and unfair pricing. The states and territories share the Albanese government's sense of urgency. Reforms to the Australian Consumer Law require agreement of the states and territories, and I want to thank every one of them for swiftly confirming their agreement to support these reforms. The ACCC has been clear they won't hesitate to take action to protect consumers and markets, and they'll seek the highest penalties appropriate in any case they take to court. This bill is an important way we are protecting consumers and securing Australia's fuel security, but it's not the only way. We have already: Established a Fuel Supply Taskforce led by Anthea Harris to ensure fuel is getting to where it is needed; Added hundreds of millions of litres of diesel and petrol by releasing some of our minimum stock obligations; Temporarily reduced the sulphur content standards to ensure more fuel can be sold here in Australia, and we are amending the fuel security services payment to ensure our domestic refineries can keep making fuels here; Temporarily adjusted diesel standards to give Australian refineries more flexibility in how they make diesel and widen the markets we source diesel from; Increased surveillance and reporting of petrol pricing by the ACCC, with a focus on usual price spikes; Worked with industry to help increase supply to service stations in regional areas; Ensured the ACCC has the ability to issue on-the-spot fines, without having to go to court; Invested $1.1 billion in low carbon liquid fuels, so our refiners can modernise and make more fuels here; Coordinated with our international partners. The Prime Minister has met with the head of the IEA and, with the Prime Minister of Singapore, reaffirmed our two nations shared commitment to working together and strengthening energy security; I have also engaged with my New Zealand counterpart, Nicola Willis, on our response; and Convened a special meeting of the Council of Financial Regulators to work through the impacts the conflict could have on our economy and financial markets. The bill also brings Australia's competition law penalties into closer alignment with comparable economies. It's the latest step in our strong track record of competition and consumer reforms since coming to government in 2022. We have already legislated the single biggest reform to Australia's merger laws in 50 years. We're introducing unfair trading practice arrangements to protect consumers and small businesses, including farmers and producers. We've increased ACCC funding by over $30 million to go after supermarkets using misleading pricing tactics. We're strengthening the Unit Pricing Code to tackle shrinkflation, and have made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, with tough penalties to stop supermarkets from unfairly squeezing suppliers. We're reforming non-compete clauses and other employment restraints. We're extending the right to repair to agricultural machinery. We're making it easier for new businesses to enter the market by incentivising the states and territories to cut commercial and industrial planning and zoning red tape under the revitalised National Competition Policy. Backed by our $900 million National Productivity Fund, we're working with the states and territories on: removing barriers to the uptake of modern methods of construction, creating a single national market for goods starting with standards reform, creating a single national market for workers by incentivising occupational licensing reforms, delivering heavy-vehicle productivity reforms, and reforms allowing health practitioners to work to their full scope of practice. All of this is about making sure Australian families get a fair go and easing the pressure where we can. My message to fuel companies is clear. If you do the right thing by your customers, our government is here to support you. But if you take advantage of foreign conflicts and take Australians for mugs, the ACCC will throw the book at you. That's what these laws are all about. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the chamber. 15:05 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. Let us be abundantly clear. This bill exists because Australia is in a fuel crisis, and the Albanese Labor government failed to act early enough to prevent it. The coalition will not oppose tougher enforcement, but it is not going to pretend that doubling penalties fixes the underlying problem that Australians are facing at the bowser today. This bill is the result of failure. It comes to this parliament only after fuel prices have spiralled beyond control and after Australians have already started to pay the price. The coalition supports staff enforcement, and it always has, but good policy anticipates problems rather than reacts after the damage is done. The coalition will not oppose this bill today, but it will use this opportunity to hold the Labor Albanese government accountable for a serious and growing cost-of-living crisis. This bill proposes to double the maximum penalties available for breaches of competition and consumer law. That is a significant change and is one that the parliament should examine carefully. Penalties matter. They are meant to deter serious misconduct. Simply increasing penalties does not on its own create deterrence. What matters is whether those penalties are targeted, proportionate and backed by evidence and sound policy. Those questions matter even more in the economic environment that Australians are living in today. Australia is facing a genuine national fuel crisis. In many parts of the country, petrol prices are about $2.50 a litre, if not more, and diesel is well over $3 a litre and rising. Prices are changing so fast that these figures are very quickly outdated. In fact, they might be outdated even now. This hurts families, farmers, freight operators, manufacturers, small businesses and entire regional communities across this country. Australians understand that global pressures exist. But when those pressures hit Australians expect clarity, urgency and leadership from their government. Instead, in recent weeks, Australians have been told different things at different times by different ministers while fuel prices have continued to climb higher and higher each and every day. This is why Australians are fast losing trust in this government when it comes to fuel. This government didn't warn Australians. They didn't act early. Let us not forget that their solution was to tell people to buy less fuel. This fuel crisis didn't emerge overnight. The warning signs were there, and this government chose not to act. That does raise a serious question about whether what we are debating today is considered reform or simply a reactive response to a crisis that this government has failed to manage. Doubling penalties is by definition retrospective. It punishes misconduct after the damage is already done. It will not put one extra litre of fuel into the Australian market, and it will do nothing to lower Australia's fuel prices today. That doesn't mean the penalties are unimportant, but we must be honest with Australians about what this bill can do and what this bill cannot do. The ACCC already has significant enforcement powers, and courts already impose serious penalties when misconduct is proven. That makes this government's delay impossible to explain, because if these tools existed all along then why did the government wait until Australians were paying record prices to act? The coalition's position is clear. We support strong enforcement. We support penalties that deter real misconduct. But we don't want to see enforcement being used to mask policy failure. That is why, while we will support this bill today, we will continue to hold the government to account for its failures in regard to this fuel crisis, because this is a real crisis that Australians are facing right now. It is a crisis that is affecting households, small businesses and entire sectors of the economy. As I say, for that reason the coalition is not going to obstruct necessary measures, but we are not going to stay silent while Australians pay record prices because this government acted too late, spoke too loosely and is now legislating after the fact. 15:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Fair dinkum! This Senate is existing in some kind of alternative reality in relation to this war, in relation to who started the war, in relation to Iran's actions and in relation to the fuel price and availability crisis currently being endured by the Australian people. This Senate is living in an alternative reality. The real facts are these. Fact 1 is that the Labor Party supports this war. The Prime Minister was one of the first global leaders out after the US and Israel illegally engaged in an unprovoked attack on Iran saying he thought it was a good idea. He has been joined by the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation—the parties of war in this place. What we are getting today from all of these parties is that, somehow, the fuel crisis in Australia manifested out of thin air. Well, it didn't manifest out of thin air. It was an entirely predictable consequence of the illegal aggression against Iran perpetrated by the US, perpetrated by Israel and cheerled by our sycophantic, mediocre Prime Minister. That's fact 1. Fact 2 is that Iran didn't wake up one morning and decide to start bombing petrochemical facilities in the Gulf region. What actually started the war was an unprovoked, illegal act by the US and Israel. That's what started the war. Iran's actions are not a provocation; they are a retaliation to an illegal provocation from the US and Israel, cheerled by the Labor Party. The Labor Party used to oppose wars back in the day, but they haven't seen a US war they didn't love in the last couple of decades, because they've abandoned their roots. They've forgotten where they came from as a political movement. They're far more interested in sucking up to Donald Trump than they are in calling for global peace and an end to the suffering, the death, the misery, the injuries and the displacement of millions of people across Iran, Southern Lebanon and elsewhere. Do you know who's paying for the warmongers—for the Labor Party, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation? If you want to just look in a domestic context, do you know who's paying? It's the people who are trying to get fuel at the moment. They're the people who are paying. No-one who supports this war should come in here and pretend that the fuel crisis is somehow happening in isolation. This was an entirely predictable consequence of the illegal invasion and bombardment of Iran perpetrated by Israel and the United States and cheerled by the Labor Party, cheerled by the Liberals, cheerled by the Nationals and cheerled on by One Nation. This was so obviously what was going to happen. All of the wargames that have been conducted for decades said this was going to happen. Don't pretend you did not know this would happen. Of course it was going to happen. Of course Australians were going to pay the price at the petrol bowser. But I want to say, very clearly, to Australians unfortunately and tragically for the people in the Gulf region, we have not seen nothing yet. The human consequences overseas, the economic consequences and the material pain for Australians have unfortunately barely begun. There is no scenario where things go back to the way they used to be anytime soon, and there is every chance that this war is a cataclysmic black-swan event for the global economy. And it will be because of the war criminals Trump and Netanyahu, and because no-one in this place, apart from the Australian Greens, had the stones to stand up and say, 'We want peace, not war.' Well, you reap what you sow. Every one of you should be held responsible by the Australian people for the economic pain they're feeling, let alone the people over there who are being murdered— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim— Senator McKIM JKM and smeared across the landscape— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim! Resume your seat. Senator McKIM JKM and bloodily dismembered in their thousands— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim! Senator McKim, I will remind you that we do need to behave in a way that reflects the chamber. Could you also please move your second reading amendment, if you so desire. Senator McKIM JKM I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) price gouging is not banned under Australian law except in relation to supermarkets, (ii) this bill will do nothing to stop fuel corporations from price gouging because it only increases penalties on existing offences, and (iii) Labor ministers that claim this bill will stop fuel corporations price gouging are misleading the Australian public; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) stop backing President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu's illegal war on Iran, which is a key driver of skyrocketing fuel prices, and (ii) extend the supermarket price gouging ban across the whole economy, including to fuel corporations". 15:15 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026, in the very small amount of time allotted to this chamber, to debate a bill where we actually seek to increase the penalties available to the ACCC. But what I'd like to have seen, as we enter the fourth week of this fuel crisis, is the ACCC on the streets, checking up on local servos, knocking on the doors of the big four fuel suppliers and launching investigations into how the market was operating and whether gouging was occurring. Was there unconscionable behaviour when there were rumours of hedging and hoarding of fuel? We're seeing a trucking industry now struggling with the biggest increase in fuel prices ever. Even at the height of the Ukraine war, fuel prices increased 40c a litre; we are now in excess of 80c to 90c a litre. That flows on through our entire economy. Australians are struggling, now, to pay for the fuel they need to get to work and to get their kids to and from schools. Industries are struggling to even get supplies of diesel and petrol to keep our agriculture industry going, and our mining industry—which pays the bills in this country—as well as our fishing industry and beyond. As we've seen in reports today, as we head into the fourth week, there is no doubt there are flow-on impacts right across our economy. There are claims that this hit will be equivalent to three interest rate rises. So, for households already struggling with Jim Chalmers's and Anthony Albanese's cost-of-living crisis, this couldn't come at a worse time. While state and federal governments play the blame game—'It's your problem; you take the lead;' 'No, it's your problem; you take the lead'—it's mums and dads lining up at suburban fuel stations or having to make the tough decisions about what they do or don't do or participate in. We're seeing absenteeism increase in the manufacturing, retail and construction workforces right now. That's what's happening outside of Canberra. As the shadow transport minister, I've been in conversations, since day one, with our trucking industry, who've called for this to be declared a national disaster because truckies are going broke. They were going broke at a rate of two businesses a week before the crisis, and it has only gotten worse. They've asked the federal government for disaster recovery arrangements to be activated, to help small trucking businesses with cash grants, and concessional loans for those businesses with fewer than 20 employees, because they can't afford to pass the fuel increases on. They've asked for the road user charge to be removed. Truckies are paying 32c a litre. The government could have removed that with a pen stroke and given immediate relief three weeks ago. It could allow higher productivity freight vehicles so you can move more kit to Coles and Woolworths, to shelves. We just need regulatory change. We need someone to sign a bit of paper. We can't get that done. NatRoad calls for cutting the road user charge. We need state-level owner-driver cost orders. The shipping industry needs the coastal trading act relaxed so that imports can move freight more efficiently. There are so many suggestions, including GST relief for our trucking industry—the tax on the tax. You could have done that on day 1. Instead, this government has taken four weeks to bring forward increasing the penalties of the ACCC. I've yet to see the ACCC prosecute anyone in the last four weeks. I don't know how many penalties they've actually handed out. Do you know what the Prime Minister's big announcement is? It's that he's got a plan to bring premiers to Canberra, in four days time, to come up with a national plan on how to save our country. These guys are incompetent, and Australia deserves better. (Time expired) 15:20 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia One Nation was the first party to call this fuel shortage a crisis. We were the first to call it to the attention of this parliament. That was three weeks ago. We asked how much fuel we had on hand, and we were all told that there wasn't a problem, just right-wing extremism and Aussies buying too much fuel. Now today we now have the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 being rushed forward through our parliament because the Albanese government is panicking. We have a big crisis. Minister Chris Bowen must declare a national fuel emergency and force supply to the regions. One Nation is investigating alternative fuel supplies. Our policy will cut fuel excise. Our policy will cut the GST paid on fuel. The Albanese government is profiting $300 million a month from the souring spike in fuel prices, while Australians are struggling. As the pain at the pump increases so too does the government's GST take on every litre. The government is taking 52.6c from every litre in excise tax and then applying a 10 per cent GST on top of the total sale. It's an absolute disgrace. We've seen the price of diesel double over the last few weeks, and that's if you can get it. The offences that this bill amends is to increase penalties that—guess what?—no-one has ever been charged under, not once. Zero multiplied by double is still zero. This bill won't do anything to crack down on the supply manipulation by big oil companies. That's why One Nation has called for the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act to be triggered—so that supply can be forced out into the regions, bringing down prices for everyone. Over 500 service stations across Australia have run out of fuel. In my home state of WA, the Shire President of Esperance has revealed that fuel arriving in the town port is trucked 1,400 kilometres in tankers all the way to Perth before it comes all the way back to Esperance so that it can be available at the local service stations. Our farmers are hurting. Our farmers are seeding soon, and putting a crop in at a much greater cost is a potential double hit, if farmers can't put enough fertiliser in at seeding due to unavailability and cost. If our farmers aren't getting the fuel and support they need, where is our food going to come from? Australia has got to have a plan. One Nation's plan is clear: trigger the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984, force supply to be delivered to regional areas and independent distributors, prioritise defence and essential services, drop the fuel excise for three months or the GST on fuel to reduce cost pressure. GST tax relief on fuel for three months is $300 million per month. Develop policies that allow Australia to find, process and distribute fuel—and net zero. Refine our own fuel and build more refineries. Consider a national reserve with crude oil companies to prioritise supply to Australia. The needs of Australia must be catered to first. Increase our fuel storage capacity. Strategic storage must be controlled by Australia on Australian shores. And remove the impediments to using domestically produced fuel. I see that the Greens have tacked on an amendment to this bill on price gouging. One Nation spoke on this extensively previously, but I'll just state again for the record that the government already has the powers to act on market manipulation by supermarkets—and it should use these powers. The Greens' amendment is vaguely worded and unworkable, and One Nation will not support it. One Nation will abolish net zero and stop the billions in subsidies that Australians are paying for wind turbines. This will not only reduce power bills and rescue families and businesses but it will put about $30 billion back into the pockets of Australians by abolishing the department of climate change. This will resolve many of the issues businesses are facing by trying to meet the net zero safeguard mechanism targets. One Nation has been saying that we need to be self-reliant—that Australia must stand on our own two feet—for decades. We need to regain our sovereignty. We must take control of our country back. One Nation has a plan, the Greens have outrage and the Labor government have no plan. 15:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I too rise to support the bill before the Senate: the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. We have been imploring the government, the Liberal Party and the National Party now, for over three weeks, to take action to assist Australians in managing what is now a fuel crisis across our country. Let's be very clear. At 4 o'clock today—because this bill will go through the Senate in 35 minutes—let's not pretend that this bill fixes the real problem that Australians have been telling the government they are facing for three weeks now. Service stations across Australia are not just running dry—they have run dry. In other words, you turn up at a service station in Australia and you may well find out it has run out of fuel. Our truckies are telling us that they are now worried about keeping freight moving across our great country. Our country is a big one. It relies on our transport sector working efficiently. The truckies are saying that they don't know if this will continue to occur. Our farmers could not have been clearer. They have been begging this government to help them get diesel—not since yesterday or the day before but for the last three weeks. Do you know why? Because they have a planting window. If they don't plant during that window, guess what? There are no crops. AUSVEG has been pretty clear. Get the fuel to where it needs to be. Small businesses across Australia are now saying to the government, 'We don't even know if we're going to be open next week.' On top of that, people across Australia are now cancelling their Easter plans. Why? Because they're already in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, they've just been hit with another interest rate rise and they now see the price of fuel at the bowser, which has hit $3 and is probably going to $4. They cannot afford now to go away at Easter. The government, to every question we ask them, says, 'We understand the pain Australians are feeling.' You've been saying that now for four years; you've done nothing about it and the pain has gotten worse. They say they're taking practical action. Today, I call on Minister Bowen to take this practical action. The S-Bend service station 30 kilometres south of Geraldton—the only fuel station within a 60 kilometre radius—have said that they are running out of fuel. Yesterday, in fact, they ran out of diesel. This is the practical action that Minister Bowen can take. The government has said that there is more fuel in Australia circulating than there was before the Iran crisis began. Australians understand this. As of today, there is currently more fuel in this country than there was before the crisis. This is the practical action the minister can take this afternoon. The S-Bend—the only servo within a 60 kilometre radius—has run out of diesel. You know where the diesel is. This is what the minister can do right now. It's 3.30 pm Eastern Daylight Time. You can pick up the phone to the companies—because you know where the fuel is; you know where the tankers are—and you can direct one of them to start driving to the S-Bend servo 30 kilometres outside of Geraldton. Let me also tell you—you want to talk about practical action. Here's some practical action. The waste recycling industry association have been clear, saying, 'We will not be picking up people's rubbish.' If that's not bad enough, they've also said, in relation to the health sector and the aged-care sector, that problems start if rubbish is not being picked up within 48 hours and public health problems will commence. They have been left off the fuel priority list by this government and they have said that is potentially catastrophic. The minister, today, can actually amend the fuel priority list and add the waste collection industry. This is a government that likes to have meetings when all it needs to do is pick up the blasted phone and call the blasted fuel companies. You know where the fuel is; you're just too lazy and you don't like action. There are two practical things the minister can do: get a tanker, please, to the S-Bend servo near Geraldton and please ensure our rubbish bins are collected. 15:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland This so-called crackdown on price gouging is a con. It will do nothing to stop price gouging, and it won't stop corporations using the cover of war to rip people off. It does not do what it says on the tin. This legislation increases penalties for companies caught lying about ripping you off, but it doesn't actually stop them from ripping you off, which it could do if the Greens' amendment passes. But let's see if that happens, because this government would rather just gaslight people about what it's doing and tinker around the edges than actually fix the problem. What is the point of stopping petrol companies lying about price gouging when you could simply stop them from price gouging in the first place? It is the ultimate window-dressing and will do nothing to fix the real pain that people are feeling. The Greens want to make price gouging illegal right across the economy—no tinkering and no loopholes that corporations can exploit. Just ban it. Make it illegal. We drafted a bill to do that, and we brought it into this place. And who do you think voted against it? The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation. All of these parties voted against stopping price gouging just two weeks ago. This bill is just trying to make the government look like they're doing something while they just continue to do absolutely nothing meaningful to stop price gouging. Australians are being slugged at the bowser thanks to a war that this government is backing and was the first in the world to back, and your response is to simply fiddle at the margins as usual. There are no provisions in Australian law that stop fuel companies price gouging, because you are not backing them. All this bill does is increase penalties for existing offences. Why are you misleading the public by implying that this bill does something that it does not do? People are hurting, and they need a government that is willing to stand up to big corporations, their obscene profiteering and their price gouging and actually offer real cost-of-living relief. The price of fuel is the No. 1 topic on people's lips in the country right now, and it is the biggest domestic impact of an illegal war that your government has backed and that all of the war parties in this chamber have signed up to and continue to support. It is wreaking havoc not just in the Middle East—not just on civilians and school buildings. It is wreaking havoc on Australians in their everyday cost of living at the bowser. Ordinary people are paying the price of this war, and the big corporations are making bank. The gas corporations, the oil corporations, the billionaires and the weapons manufacturers are loving this conflict. It is making them richer, and it is making everybody else's life harder. It is your job to try to fix that. We could be taxing those big corporations, making them pay their fair share and using that revenue to help people. We could be taxing those export gas companies whose profits have already skyrocketed since this illegal war began weeks ago and using that money to help people. We could make public transport free, stop price gouging and actually invest in the things that make people live a good life and help them deal with the pressures that they're under. It might sound crazy, but, maybe on a bill that talks about price gouging, you should actually fix price gouging. That's precisely what our amendment will do. The impacts of this war are not going to stop at petrol, though. We already know that fertiliser costs are going to go up, and that will flow through to both farmers and food prices. Under pressure from the Greens, three months ago the government finally brought in restrictions on price gouging by the big supermarkets, but do you think it's taken effect yet? No. They're making people wait six months before it takes effect, and they voted against making price gouging illegal across the economy. I wonder how much profit Coles and Woollies will make in the six-month reprieve that they've got to continue to profiteer off people, to continue to mislead people and to continue to rip people off. If this government actually wants to stop petrol companies from ripping people off, price gouging families and truckies for $3 or more a litre, then you could actually just stop price gouging, you could get us out of this illegal war, you could tax the big corporations and you could invest in helping people address the cost of living. 15:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Australia is facing a genuine, national energy and fuel crisis. We're now seeing those skyrocketing prices at the bowsers, hitting Australian households with petrol around $2.50 per litre for unleaded and up to $3.20 per litre for diesel, prices that many Australians have simply never seen before. No wonder panic is beginning to rise. The uncertainty and the mixed messages that have been coming out of this government have only made the problem worse. Fuel stations now, we are hearing, are running dry. Around 600 petrol stations around the country are running out of either both types or one type of fuel, and the impact on Australian families is entirely unacceptable. Those rising fuel costs are disconnecting Australian families and communities. It is totally unbelievable that Australian families have to rethink everyday things like a school drop, an extra run to the supermarket where the shelves may well be bare, visiting family over Easter or driving kids to school and to sport just to save money. The planned family holidays over Easter, the most common time of year for a driving holiday, are now being rethought. Australians expect leadership, and all they have had are mixed messages. We want urgency. We want action. This is only one step, one small contribution to the action plan that we are expecting from government yet seeing so little of. There is concern about prices today, but there is more concern about what happens tomorrow. What happens when the food can't get to the supermarket because fuel prices are too high? What happens when our docks slow down and imports and exports slow dramatically? What happens when farmers stop harvesting or stop planting the next harvest because they're concerned they can't get access to either fertiliser or fuel? What happens when rubbish trucks stop picking up the rubbish from our bins, not just at our homes but at our hospitals and our aged-care centres? This is what we've seen from this government: a lack of forward thinking and, at the same time, a complete backflip in messaging. First of all, we had, 'There's no problem at all.' In fact, anybody who was saying that there was a problem, that was pointing out that there was a crisis, was some sort of right wing, scaremongering extremist. What an enormous insult that was to all of those Australians outside of the Canberra bubble that could clearly see that there was a problem. The next thing they said was, 'Actually, there is a national crisis. Sorry. We got it wrong and there is a national crisis,' but then they did nothing. Finally, they called a National Cabinet meeting. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming, and that was really so they could push the responsibility back out onto the states. Thank goodness some of the premiers have stepped up, although I do say only some. Then they blamed consumers. I thought this was terrific. 'It's the problem of consumers. They're panic-buying. It's un-Australian to go out and fill your car with petrol when prices are lower today because you know that they're going to be higher tomorrow.' Apparently, that's un-Australian. I would have called that perfectly rational, but it was un-Australian according to Labor. This is a government that has been caught flat-footed, asleep at the wheel and then in denial about the scale of this crisis. Fuel costs are hitting farmers, manufacturers, freight and logistics. They're hitting small businesses. It's an economy-wide impact that cannot be ignored, and these costs are being directly passed on to consumers. Let's face it, at the end of the day, it's always the consumers that are going to pay. Inflation has run rife in this country for the last four years. It hasn't been kept under control but has been allowed to be unfettered across the country because Labor has failed to do its job. You were already suffering from a cost-of-living crisis before this fuel crisis began. It's Australian small business that are most under pressure here. They're the ones fighting a fight that no-one's coming to rescue them from. No-one's coming to rescue them. What if the only way you can distribute your goods is through delivery? Now we're seeing Australia Post, a government owned enterprise, increase its fuel levy on small businesses right around the country. It's small businesses that are suffering terribly. They're already facing industrial relations pressure, inflation from government spending, rising taxes and compliance costs. Fuel costs are just another hit on their already stretched margins. It's the worst possible time for the tourism sector, which is relying on this Easter break to be able to fill their coffers, increase their margins, to cover them for the rest of the year. This crisis is urgent and real. It's hitting Australians right now. The government needs to do one thing. It's got one job, and that is to get fuel flowing. Its priorities are all wrong. This is just going to touch the sides. It's only going to scratch the surface. 15:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank senators for their contribution on this bill. It is an important bill, and I think the passing of this bill this week, in one of the last things the Senate does in this sitting week, is very important. The bill doubles the penalties for false or misleading conduct and cartel behaviour to a maximum of $100 million per offence. This is an important part of our response to some of the impacts we are seeing flow through to our economy as a result of the Middle East conflict. These laws will help to tackle price gouging at its source, outlawing false or misleading representations, including lying about the reasons for price increases; price fixing, colluding on prices and other cartel behaviour; misuse of market power to lessen competition, including by refusing to supply to third parties like independent fuel retailers; unfair contract terms, especially in relation to business-to-business conduct, to stop big businesses pushing around small and family businesses; exclusive dealings that reduce competition; and unconscionable conduct, like taking advantage of vulnerable people. This is important legislation. I thank the Senate for those contributions today. It builds on the action the government has already taken, which includes releasing 20 per cent of the baseline minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel, getting more fuel into the market by temporarily amending the fuel standards, working with the ACCC to authorise major suppliers to get fuel where it's needed in the regions and ramp up fuel price monitoring, and engaging with international partners to strengthen supply chains and fuel security. These are the actions of a responsible government that has been dealing with the impact of the Middle East conflict carefully and appropriately. We will continue to do so as this conflict unfolds and the impacts of the conflict unfold on our economy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 306168 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Kovacic)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. D. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 72 15:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move the amendment that's been circulated in my name on sheet 3735: (1) Page 6 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Price gouging Competition and Consumer Act 2010 1 Subsection 4(1) Insert: competitive price has the meaning given by subsection 46(2B). 2 Before subsection 46(1) Insert: Substantially lessening competition 3 After subsection 46(1) Insert: Price gouging (2) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that results, or is likely to result, in: (a) a good or service being acquired by another person, or supplied to another person, at a price that is excessive; or (b) an offer being made to another person for the other person to acquire a good or service, or for the other person to be supplied a good or service, at a price that is excessive; or (c) an agreement being entered into by another person for the other person to acquire a good or service, or for the other person to be supplied a good or service, at a price that is excessive. (2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), in determining whether a price for the acquisition or supply of a good or service is excessive, regard must be had to the competitive price for the good or service. (2B) The competitive price, for a good or service, is the price at which the good or service would have been acquired by, or supplied to, the other person if the corporation did not have a substantial degree of power in that market. (2C) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to a price for the acquisition or supply of a good or service if a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, requires or allows the good or service to be acquired or supplied at that price. (2D) Subsection (2) does not apply to a corporation if the sum of the following amounts is less than $10,000,000: (a) the corporation's turnover; (b) the turnover of all bodies corporate that are related to the corporation; where the turnover is worked out under subsection (9) for the corporation's last income year (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) that ended at or before the time when the conduct is engaged in. General provisions 4 At the end of section 46 Add: Provisions relating to turnover (9) For the purposes of subsection (2D), the turnover of a corporation, or of a body corporate, for a period is the sum of the values of all supplies the corporation, or body corporate, made during the period, other than the following: (a) supplies that are input taxed; (b) supplies that are not for consideration (and are not taxable supplies under section 72-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999); (c) supplies that are not made in connection with an enterprise that the corporation, or body corporate, carries on; (d) supplies that are not connected with the indirect tax zone. (10) Expressions used in subsection (9) that are also used in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 have the same meaning as in that Act. 5 Application The amendments of section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to conduct engaged in on or after the commencement of this item. Minister, I just want to see whether you're prepared to put your credibility on the line and join with the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers; the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong; and Minister Ayres by suggesting that this bill addresses price gouging in the fuel sector. The reason I'm interested in that is that we in the Greens have a very strong view that both Minister Ayres and Minister Wong have misled the Senate by claiming that this bill addresses price gouging, and I want to lay out precisely why that is. This bill doubles penalties for existing provisions in Australia's competition and consumer law. Those existing provisions are things that make misleading or deceptive conduct, cartel behaviour and other things unlawful but which actually don't make price gouging unlawful. Anyone who's an expert in this area—including, I might add, Professor Allan Fels—will tell you that there is no provision in Australian law that makes price gouging unlawful except for the provision that you introduced last year that makes price gouging unlawful in the supermarket sector. My question to you, Minister, is: if the existing body of consumer law in Australia is so deficient that you needed to introduce something to make supermarket sector price gouging illegal, how is it that you can claim that existing laws actually address price gouging across the rest of the economy? The short answer is that you can't. You can't suggest that price gouging is unlawful on an economy-wide basis or anywhere else other than the supermarket sector. So, when Minister Wong, Minister Ayres and Treasurer Chalmers claim, as they all have this week, that this bill will address price gouging in the petrol sector, isn't it a fact that they are wrong? The reason that's so important is this, and this is the last thing I'll say in this contribution. Wherever you go in this country right now, the barbecue-stopper issue is petrol prices, diesel prices, fuel prices and fuel availability. That is all anyone is talking about. When you have a crisis of this nature that is putting pressure right across the economy and right across household budgets, people expect a couple of things of their government. One is that the government will do what it reasonably can to address the issue. In that context, what you reasonably could do is actually act to make price gouging unlawful in the petrol sector. The second thing that people expect from a government is that they will front up, be honest with the Australian people about what they're doing and explain why they're doing it. You have failed both of those tests. You're not being honest with the Australian people, because you're claiming that this bill addresses price gouging when it obviously does not. Secondly, you're not doing everything you reasonably can, because if you were you'd introduce legislation that actually does ban price gouging across the economy, including in the fuel sector. 15:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'll probably take that as a comment. I'm not sure there was a question in there. In the interest of time, I will just repeat what was said in the second reading speech. It said: These laws help tackle price gouging at its source, outlawing: False or misleading representations, including lying about the reason for price increases; Price fixing, colluding on prices, and other cartel behaviour; Misuse of market power to lessen competition, including by refusing to supply to third parties like independent fuel retailers; Unfair contract terms, especially in relation to business-to-business conduct, to stop big business pushing around small and family businesses; Exclusive dealings that reduce competition; and Unconscionable conduct, like taking advantage of vulnerable people. That is what this bill will do by significantly increasing—doubling—the fines, the penalties, for breaches of the Australian consumer law and the Competition and Consumer Act. The government are being upfront and transparent about what we are doing here. We are bringing legislation to the chamber for senators to vote on. It doesn't get much cleaner and more transparent than that. I am hoping that the Senate will agree to pass these laws today. They are an important response to some of the effects that we've seen flow through to our economy, including on prices on fuel, since the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, and I look forward to the Senate's support. 15:56 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania If all of those things that you just mentioned—deceptive and misleading conduct, cartel behaviour, misuse of market power—either individually or collectively constituting price gouging, why did your government need to introduce specific legislation to ban price gouging in the supermarket sector? 15:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As Senator McKim knows, the decision around the legislation in response to supermarkets was done in response to the work that the ACCC had conducted in an inquiry, including advice to the government, and specifically found the supermarket sector to be dominated by two players. We take advice from the ACCC seriously. They have been consulted on the laws that we are debating right now, and we will continue to work with the ACCC as we work through some of these issues that we're seeing. We expect—and I know that the Chair of the ACCC and all of her staff are working around the clock to respond to some of what we're seeing and some of the concerns that people have raised around fuel and fuel pricing and distribution across the economy. We support the work of the ACCC and the advice that they provide government. 15:58 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the risk of mixing my culinary metaphors, that was a blancmange as well as a word salad, Minister. I chaired the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices. Please don't give me a lecture about the competition status in the supermarket sector. I'll going to back it in that the evidence that we heard through a long and comprehensive inquiry—we exposed to the Australian people the perfidy of Coles and Woolworths and the fact that, together, they have about two-thirds of the share of the supermarket sector in Australia. I'm going to back it in that that evidence says quite enough to the Australian people about the lack of competition in the supermarket sector and the resultant opportunities that Coles and Woolies have, which they are availing themselves of to price gouge Australian shoppers. We know all that. Let me tell you another thing, the fuel wholesale sector is not all that much more competitive than the supermarket sector in Australia. But that is actually not relevant to the question that I asked you. Minister, do you claim this bill addresses price gouging in the fuel sector or not? 15:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have answered the question. Limitation of Debate 74 15:59 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time allocated for the debate on the bill has expired. I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I will begin with the Committee of the Whole amendment moved by the Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3735 be agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 306168 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time.

The committee divided. [16:04]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Polley)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. P. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Collins, J. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill reported without amendment.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 75 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 75 16:07 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. We heard in question time today—and I like to throw in quotes with things—a quote that's sometimes attributed to Napoleon and sometimes to Omar Bradley, which says, 'Amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics.' We are seeing that this government is an amateur when it comes to national crises. We are seeing that it is an amateur when it comes to planning for the future, because it is not planning logistics; it is talking about tactics. This is what we're seeing. We're seeing the amateurs in charge of a response to help Australia's fuel situation. We're hearing about the Strait of Hormuz and we're hearing about the Ukrainian gas problem. We're hearing about these things as well. I tell you, we are not seeing Putin on the Bruce Highway. We are not seeing the IRGC on the M1. We are not seeing the mullahs on the Hume Highway. What we are seeing is a failure to get the fuel from where the government tells us it is to where it is needed. That is the real challenge we are facing here. When we are seeing service stations in regional areas run out, such as the one in Western Australia we were told about by Senator O'Sullivan today, we are seeing that these things are not working out there. What are we doing? We hear about the tactics used by this government to fix it. We hear them say, 'The ACCC will fix it; we're giving them extra powers and penalties.' The ACCC can't look into price gouging. They can't look into this thing that is happening out there in the service stations in the states. They can't look into big oil and the way they put that out around the world. When we're talking about the tactics of releasing 100 million litres a month—let's get down to it—that is less than one litre per person per week. Those are the big steps we are taking on this. It is not about the Strait of Hormuz and what happens there, because they keep saying that we have more oil in the country than we had at the beginning of this. If that is true, how come the service stations can't sell it? How come the big enterprises of the world can't get the urea to make the glue that goes into kitchen cabinets, pine board and particle board? How come we are not getting the diesel on farms that they sell? The big guys are now supplying. There used to be little wholesalers in the spot market, but they're not selling to people anymore, because the big boys say: 'I've got my fuel, and I'm going to come there. I'm going to use my market dominance in this area.' Then they come out and say, 'Your tank's not compliant; I'm not going to fill you up,' or 'This is not underground.' They give any reason in the world. I'll go to my home, in the Hunter. I know an operator there who felt he got ripped off a couple of weeks ago because he had to prepay for three weeks of fuel at $2.30 a litre, and that was 200,000 bucks. He's now feeling he won the lotto because it's $3.50. He's in the market buying more, and this is what we're seeing. We're seeing a fuel system and logistics system break down, and the government have powers to deal with this. There is section 11, and we have all of these national powers. What is worse is the ABC reports that the government ran a simulation through NEMA, the National Emergency Management Agency, last year on what they would do in this situation. This is them at their best, with recent practice—them after having an exercise on what they would if this happened. God help everyone out there if they hadn't done that! Imagine what would be happening now. What we heard was no guarantees to two simple questions. They were asked: 'Can you guarantee we won't run out of fuel?' No guarantee came. They were asked: 'Can you guarantee there will be no rationing?' No guarantee came. This is why we know the amateurs are in charge of this response. All we hear about is the global shocks. You can't have it both ways. You can't have more stock in the country now than there ever has been and have less fuel in service stations and say 'We are in control.' Those things are not compatible, and that is how we're going forward. When we leave here, forget the tactics and forget the politics. Get to the logistics, and keep Australia moving. 16:11 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We've all in this chamber spent this week listening to the collective of the Greens over there, who are implying Australia started the war in Iran, and our friends across the chamber from the coalition, who are very busy being very loud, wound up and very excited. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKenzie, please. Senator GROGAN 296331 There we are. Senator McKenzie is proving my point— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKenzie, I remind you and others in the chamber that it is disorderly to interject. Senator GROGAN 296331 We could all stand in here and shout at each other, but I'm not sure what that really achieves, given we've been at it for four days. There is a situation in the world, a global challenge, that is impacting Australia. Unlike the assertions of the Greens, particularly of Senator McKim, Australia did not start the war in Iran. Australia is not part of the core challenges in the Middle East. Those challenges have been around for a very long time. But what we do know is that those things impact Australia. It is very easy to go, 'You should stop the war.' Newsflash, people—that's not something the government of this country, regardless of who is in government, has the power to do; I'm sorry to upset your hysterical narrative, but it's just not. When we come to the issue at hand here of what's happening on the ground in Australia, what I can tell you is that I know people on the ground are hurting right now. They're driving past petrol stations, looking at the price and thinking: 'How on earth do I afford a tank of petrol ongoing? How long is this going to last?' They're looking at the situation in some of those regional areas where people pull up and there isn't any petrol. That is not widespread, but it is happening. What this government has done is look at all the levers it can pull to make a difference, to get as much of the fuel supplies that are needed to the places that need them. Do we know that people are running out of petrol in some areas? Yes, we do. Is the work ongoing to try and make sure everybody has what they need? Yes, it is. This little red bubble in here shouting and carrying on like pork chops isn't necessarily helping, because you're terrifying the living daylights out of people—that they're never going to get another drop of petrol. Senator McKenzie 207825 They're already terrified at your lack of capacity. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKenzie, you're not helping. Senator GROGAN 296331 Senator McKenzie cannot help herself. Senator McKenzie has to keep shouting and carrying on. It's four minutes. You can 'not talk' for four minutes. It's not that hard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Grogan, return to your comments, please. I remind senators that interjecting is disorderly, and it's not helpful. Senator GROGAN 296331 We are working very closely with all of the people we can to pull all of the levers we can to ameliorate the impact of these global challenges. These are supply challenges that we can't influence at source, but we are doing everything we can to influence them everywhere along the supply chain. We are making moves to ensure that price gouging is dealt with. We cannot have companies of any sort out there making a buck out of the challenges for people on the ground in Australia. This government is doing everything we can to make a difference to Australians on the ground when we are faced with what is a global challenge. We cannot control global events, but we can control how we respond to them. 16:16 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Outside of here, in the real world where real people live, outside this place, ports are telling us right now that trade could grind to a halt. Apprentices—young people who have been going to work—have been stood down from their jobs. Primary producers, including vegetable growers, are reducing production as they consider if they can even get to their crops or their animals. Can they even get that produce and their commodities to market without going broke? These are decisions of real people—real people like rural doctors, who are having meetings about how they're going to get to their patients and how many may be untreated. It is this government that's allowed this fuel crisis to escalate to the point where it is now disrupting trade, jobs, fuel supply, health services and frontline operations right across Australia. The reality is that Minister Bowen is a part-time energy minister in what is a national crisis. He is asleep at the wheel. This government is outsourcing responsibility right now to a fuel coordinator, instead of being fully focused on fixing the problem. I would have thought that the only thing that each and every one of the government ministers—these government ministers across here—would be doing right now is working out how each Australian is going to be affected in every portfolio, in every electorate, by this mess. It's impacting aged care, agriculture, Indigenous Australians in remote communities, volunteers who do incredible work in our communities, the transport industry and every type of small business. This government has a problem not only with finding solutions but also with communicating what it is doing to the Australian public. It is the government itself that has fuelled confusion and anxiety, not right-wing extremists, as they claim. My colleagues and I have been raising this for weeks, demanding attention to this obvious risk. Demanding answers in this place does not make us—or me—right-wing extremists. This government has sought to cover up its incompetence by seeking to blame everyone else. One of the reasons it's doing this is that it hasn't found a solution. It's hard to believe that, with all the resources at its disposal, all the intelligence it's got at hand and the fact that it's been in charge for four years, it still seeks to blame everybody else. It should be unbelievable, but it's actually true. And now it's failing to tell the Australian people how it will work its way through this. It's still 'looking at the levers', we just heard. Well, we want you to pull them. Sure, there is conflict in the Middle East, blocking a supply route, but the economy was already in trouble. This has just made a bad situation much worse. Remember, just a few weeks ago, you were pretending there were no supply issues, even though people, including me, were pulling up to bowsers that said, 'Not in use.' That should tell you that there's a supply issue. Now the government is telling us to work from home. In fact, the International Energy Agency, which was here only this week, has a list of recommendations: work from home, reduce highway speed limits, encourage public transport, get a carpool, use an EV, divert LPG, avoid air travel, and switch to other modern cooking solutions. But do you know what should have been the No. 1 recommendation, when they spoke this week in this very place? This Labor government needs to get on with it and stop blaming everyone else. 16:20 Senator MULHOLLAND 277110 Queensland Recent global conflict and shipping disruptions have shown us just how fragile our fuel supply chain can be. We know Australia imports the vast majority of its fuel from overseas, and that is a vulnerability that we simply cannot ignore. I will get to just how we got into that position shortly. In my home state of Queensland we operate one of Australia's two only refineries, the Ampol refinery in Lytton, home to more than 550 refinery workers. They have been working around the clock to keep up with the current peak in demand. So we thank them for their hard work at this critical time. And supporting the work of our refinery workers are Queensland's hardworking truck drivers and transport operators. Our transport operators have been delivering tanker after tanker of fuel across the country. They have also been feeling the pinch of the spike in demand for fuel. This government has taken action to help our trucking industry manage the impacts of the Iranian conflict. The government will amend the Fair Work Act to allow truckies and road transport businesses to make an emergency application for an order to deal with the current spike in fuel prices. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKenzie, a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 Could I draw your attention to the question before the chair. This is to take note of answers. The government's solutions bore no— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKenzie, we know this is a wide-ranging debate, considering that— Senator McKenzie 207825 She's referring to legislation that— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x we're taking note of all coalition questions. Please resume your seat. Senator Mulholland, please continue. Senator MULHOLLAND 277110 I do note that the question from Senator Liddle was, how did the government allow this crisis to escalate? And we're exactly talking about how we got to that position. The actions, or the inactions, while Senator McKenzie was sitting on the frontbench of the last government is exactly how we got here. Rather than going around in trucks and pretending to be a truck driver, we are doing something about this industry, and we are putting through legislation to protect this industry at this critical time. So I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Transport Workers' Union on this important issue. We must remember that it is the union movement that has always defended our sovereign fuel capacity in this nation. And we know it is the Australian Workers Union that has always come to this capital city to defend our local refineries, particularly the Lytton refinery. It took the AWU, back in 2020, coming to Canberra to save our Lytton refinery, which was going to shut under the Morrison government. Do you remember those guys? Yeah, we do. This is the same coalition that bowls into question time and tries to rewrite history about their legacy with our sovereign fuel capacity—which is ironic, given that Senator Cadell comes into this place and waxes lyrical, quoting Napolean. These are the same characters who said nothing when six of our eight refineries closed in this country—six of our eight refineries, gone under the last coalition government—thousands of Australian jobs in industry gone under their watch. That is 75 per cent of our refineries shut under the coalition. Many of those opposite were sitting on the frontbench at that time, and they didn't say a word. They sat by and watched our refineries shut, one after the other: in Queensland, in Western Australia, in Victoria and in New South Wales—all of them gone, just like the car industry, gone under the coalition. This is a coalition who wants to talk a big game about sovereign capability in manufacturing and our critical industries, but their legacy was killing off our car industry and shutting our refineries. Just yesterday the Nationals were in here talking down efforts to protect our smelters. They came into this place yesterday mocking the deal the government has done with the Queensland government to protect the Boyne aluminium smelter in Central Queensland. More than 3,000 jobs are sustained at that one smelter alone, and they couldn't care less. They mocked it. They mocked those jobs in Central Queensland. That's their legacy. 16:24 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales I tell you what, talk about looking in the rear-view mirror. This is the government right here right now. What are they doing? Senator McKenzie 207825 That's right. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKenzie, you interjected on those on the opposite side. Can you please not interject on your own senator. Senator COLLINS 297964 Thank you, Acting Deputy President Polley, but I encourage Senator McKenzie to interject. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x It's disorderly— Senator COLLINS 297964 I will— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Collins, I asked you to resume your seat. I am in the chair at the moment, and it is not helpful when you encourage your colleague, because it is disorderly. Senator COLLINS 297964 Let me explain myself a little more fully. I think we need more senators in this place that are shouting to the rooftops about this issue. There are Australian families out there, Australian farmers and now people in the cities that don't have access to fuel. It is not just a problem for this week; it is a problem for next week, it's a problem for next month and the wintertime and the summertime when all of those farmers that haven't been able to sow their seed and that have no crops will end up in a very dire straight indeed. And so, yes, I encourage people to stand in here and scream and yell about this problem. I tell you what, we are not getting any answers from this government about what they're going to do. We have heard from Senator Ayres, and I'm glad he's in the chamber here today to hear this—we have heard from Senator Ayres, for the past two weeks, that, firstly, it's not a problem; secondly, it's a problem with the Australian people filling up their jerry cans; and, thirdly, they don't have any plan at all to deal with that. There is no guarantee about what they are going to do about this rationing, there is no guarantee about what they're going to do about the distribution, and there is no guarantee about what they are going to do about the rising prices. It is a problem for all of us. We have heard from our senators in the opposition today that the waste industry is not on the priority fuel list. What's going to happen when supermarkets and aged care don't get their waste collected? Who's going to pick it up? It is going to be a public health catastrophe. We have an economic catastrophe. We have a public health catastrophe. We have ports that are potentially going to grind to a halt. Vegetable growers are reducing their production. A quarter of the growers have said that they will reduce or stop their planting. Just have a think about what that's going to do for your Coles shelves and the Woolies shelves when you go and buy your apples and bananas for your school lunches. We have a government that has its head in the sand on this issue. There is no plan for any of this. They stand there, and they look in the rear-view mirror, and they point at the failures of previous governments. It is their job now to be dealing with this issue. We need communication with the Australian people. They don't need to be told that this is right-wing scaremongering, disinformation or misinformation. They just want to feel secure. They want to be able to plan. They want to be able to go away on holidays. They want to be able to know that, when they cross the Nullarbor, they're going to have somewhere to fill up their car and the kids in the back won't be stranded in the heat. This is what we have. We have a government that has lost control. They've lost control of the Australian security, of the budget and of themselves. Question agreed to. Fuel Security, Waste Management and Recycling, Cybersafety, Fuel 79 16:29 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to questions without notice asked today. Could I first deal with the answers given in response to a question from my colleague Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Hanson-Young asked a simple question. We've now seen a high-profile case in the United States be delivered against some of the biggest, meanest global platforms for the toxic nature of the product they sell—hundreds of millions of dollars ordered in damages. In light of that, Senator Hanson-Young asked when is this government, the Albanese Labor government, going to move from empty words to actually legislating a digital duty of care? I've read the answers, and I've listened carefully to the answers. It was the biggest load of waffle you could ever imagine. There was an extraordinary inability to come to grips with the core issues. When are we going to get a digital duty of care? Anyone who listened to the answer from the Albanese Labor government would have no idea and, indeed would be fearful that they weren't quite sure how to turn a computer on. That would be the fair summary you'd get from Labor's response to Senator Hanson-Young's basic question. So why do we need a digital duty of care, and why do we need the second tranche of the privacy reforms? It's because this government, the Labor government—and this is consistent with what the coalition did when they were in government—have given a blank cheque to the tech platforms. Whatever they want, whatever data they want to suck out of Australians, however they want to manipulate Australians and however they want to maximise their profit by driving hate and division, the coalition and Labor and their mates in One Nation, who live off that hate and division, say, 'Whatever you like.' They give a blank cheque to these big US tech platforms. Australians are sick of it. They're sick of a government that refuses and fails to back in the interests of Australians and, instead, deregulates for some of the most noxious players on the planet. What do we need to do? Well, what we could do, first of all, is a lift and shift of the regulations in place in Europe, which actually put some constraints on big tech. They force transparency on algorithms. They force transparency on the data that they hold about Europeans and actually give people in Europe the right to say no. In an extraordinary moment I recall in the AI inquiry we had at the end of the last parliament, Meta came in, and it had just been discovered that Meta had scraped off every Australian Facebook post, Instagram post and photo going back to 2007 that had been put on a public post, and they had fed it into their AI. They fed every single one of them—-every comment, every post, every photo—into their AI, and there was this faux outrage from Labor at the time: 'How could you do this? This is terrible.' I remember asking Meta, 'Why did you do this to Australian users, and why didn't you do it to European users?' And they said, 'There's a law that prevents us from doing that in Europe.' They actually have laws. What has happened in the, what, more than 12 months since then? Zip, zero, nada—from this government. Our privacy rights, our online protection rights, are not even fit for the 20th century let alone the 21st century. Give us a digital duty of care. Lift and shift from those European regulations and controls the platforms already know how to comply with to give us the right to say no and help put those transparency provisions in so we can at least see what's been fed into these toxic algorithms and make decisions to get away from them. That's what's needed, but why won't Labor do it? Because they are frightened of retaliation from Donald Trump. It's the same story, time after time—complete spinelessness. They won't take on Donald Trump, because they think that he's going to go and say mean things about them if Australia takes on American tech. Well, it's about time to grow a spine. Can I finish by reflecting on some of the answers from Senator Wong. Senator Wong stated that we've got a fuel crisis, we're working with our neighbours, and we're working with our regions. She mentioned we're working with Singapore. Well, I wonder if Minister Wong has read the statements that were just given by Minister Wong's counterpart, the Singaporean Foreign minister, who, in the last 24 hours, told some basic truths. He said that the US was now 'a revisionist power'—this is the language of the Singaporean foreign minister. He said: Basically, the underwriter of this world order has now become a revisionist power, and some people would even say a disruptor. Imagine if our Foreign minister was speaking with independence and truth like that. 16:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I rise to speak on the motion to take note of answers. Reflecting on the responses given by Senator Wong, the Australian people expect independence and a bit of spine from their government. Yet what we have witnessed since the beginning of America's war on Iran—and the escalation and expansion of the war in the Middle East, which has now been going for so many years and for which the US bears such incredible responsibility—from the Australian government is utter spinelessness. This government will bear, for all time, the shame of being the first nation in the world to back in Donald Trump's war on Iran—to look at this man and his administration's vile track record, in every area of policy, and go: 'That's the one. We'll go all the way with him. That sounds like a good idea.' Tonight, across the country, families, from Western Australia to South Australia, to Victoria, to New South Wales, to Queensland, and in the NT and here in the ACT, and down in Tasmania, are paying the price for the spinelessness and the lack of vision of this government. Not only has the government followed along behind the United States into an escalation of this conflict—preventing us from playing a role in the urgently-needed de-escalation, the urgently-needed negotiation for the urgently-needed peace that is the only thing that will give us any hope of restoring the conditions necessary to relieve people's cost-of-living pressures, let alone to actually end the bloodshed that continues, right now, as we debate this question—but also they sit here condemned of one of the most shocking acts of failure to do the basic work of government that I have seen in nearly a decade in this place. I can't believe it has to be a statement made this evening, but our nation is an island nation, and, in a time of crisis, our access to the basics required to function as a country depends on one of two things: either our ability to manufacture, create and supply those basics here at home, or our ability to source those basics from the region around us. Now, this dynamic is not new; it has always existed, and the COVID-19 pandemic threw this into clear relief. It showed us, in devastating detail, that in so many areas of essential goods and services, from the supply of food to the supply of medication to the supply of petrol, diesel and fertiliser, where once had existed systems able to supply the community in times of crisis, systems able to self-sustain, now existed privatised, corporate run systems that existed solely for making a profit and that those systems were not fit for purpose in an emergency. And what did you people do with the years given to you to act? Tonight, people would be fair enough in looking to this place and answering, 'Nothing, and we are now paying the price.' Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee 80 Report 80 16:41 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Ban Unethical Contractors) Bill 2025, together with accompanying documents. Treaties Joint Committee 80 Report 80 16:41 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I present the 231st report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Law Enforcement Joint Committee 80 Report 80 16:41 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I present the reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement on the examination of the 2024-25 annual reports of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the Australian Federal Police. I move: That the Senate take note of the report on the Australian Federal Police annual report 2024-25. I rise as the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to present the committee's report examining the Australian Federal Police annual report 2024-25. I note the retirement of Mr Reece Kershaw APM from the role of AFP commissioner in October 2025. The committee thanks Mr Kershaw for his service to the AFP, including six years as AFP commissioner, and for his assistance to this committee's work over the years. The committee welcomes the appointment of Commissioner Krissy Barrett APM, the first female to be appointed to the position of AFP commissioner. The committee acknowledges Commissioner Barrett's priorities for the AFP, including futureproofing the workforce, supercharging global operations, defending domestic and regional security, protecting vulnerable communities and investing in technology and capability. The committee looks forward to the AFP achieving this vision under her leadership. Regarding the AFP's annual report for 2024-25, I'm pleased to report that the committee did not identify any major issues of concern. The AFP met all but one of its performance criteria during the reporting period, and, for the target that was not met, a detailed explanation was provided. As Australia's national policing agency, the AFP defends and protects Australians and Australia's future from domestic and global security threats. Key achievements for 2024-25 included: restraining over $143.6 million in criminal assets; responding to 22,706 incidents at airports; and charging 96 people as a result of child exploitation investigations. The committee recognises the increasing complexity and long lead times of some AFP investigations which do not fit neatly into an annual reporting period. The inclusion of case studies containing the details of operations is helpful to illustrate this aspect of police work. During the period, Operation Firestorm was established to counter organised cybercriminal groups engaged in large-scale cyber-enabled fraud. The AFP worked with its Philippines partners to track down a major scam centre which had impacted approximately 5,000 Australians. Operation Kraken focused on disrupting the use of the Ghost platform by organised criminals to import drugs, launder money and commit violent crimes. As of 31 December 2025, through this operation, the AFP executed 99 search warrants, charged 55 offenders with numerous offences, seized firearms and weapons, prevented 50 threats to life, seized 242 kilograms of illicit drugs and $3.7 million in cash, and restrained assets valued at $24.37 million. The committee wishes to highlight the work of the AFP in delivering the Pacific Police Partnership Program. As of 30 June 2025, approximately 106 AFP members were located across the Pacific and Timor-Leste, working directly with local law enforcement. The AFP plays a vital role in ensuring security throughout the region and reducing the flow of illicit drugs to Australia. The committee commends the AFP for maintaining strong relationships across the Pacific and with its international partners. Regarding the AFP's countering child exploitation work, the committee recently undertook a site visit to the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and heard firsthand about the crucial role the AFP plays in protecting children in Australia and around the world. The committee acknowledges the difficult and important work of the Australian Federal Police in this space. The AFP is focused on establishing the ACT portion of the National Firearms Register, and the AFP is currently in the initial discovery and design phase, which is scheduled to be completed by early 2026. The committee looks forward to the integration of jurisdictions into the central component of the register, which is expected to be ready by the end of 2026. The AFP's most important asset is its people. They have been progressing several initiatives to improve recruitment and wellbeing, and the AFP's dedicated recruitment efforts are positively impacting the organisation. The AFP has also introduced enhanced paid parental leave provisions for all parents, including expanding paid parental leave to 18 weeks for primary carers and introducing a phased increase to entitlements for secondary carers to enable more AFP members to spend early parenting time with their families. The committee expects that this will positively impact its workforce. I commended the AFP for continuing to perform well in a very complex operating environment to protect the safety of Australians, and I wish to thank the AFP officers who gave evidence to the committee and also my fellow committee members for their contribution to the committee's important oversight of this role. I commend the report to the Senate. Question agreed to. Report 82 16:47 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the report on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission annual report 2024-25. I rise as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to present the committee's report examining the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ACIC, annual report for 2024-25. I am pleased to report that the committee is satisfied with the performance of the ACIC. No major issues of concern were identified in this annual report examination. The ACIC fully met nine of its 11 targets and substantially met its two remaining targets. Detailed explanations for the ACIC's results were provided in the annual report. As Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, the ACIC's purpose is to protect Australia from serious criminal threats by collecting, assessing and disseminating intelligence and policing information. Its key achievements in 2024-25 included the generation of 2,002 new products and dissemination of intelligence products 12,500 times to 291 agencies; the delivery of reliable and effective national policing information systems; the processing of over 7.26 million police checks—the highest volume since this system was established; the introduction of a new national automated fingerprint identification system; and the continued expansion of the National Criminal Intelligence System. The committee recognises the work of the ACIC in continuing to upgrade the information systems relied on by policing agencies around the country. The committee is pleased that the National Continuous Checking Capability for working-with-children and police checks will introduce a real-time checking capability as opposed to the point-in-time checks. The committee looks forward to seeing this capability becoming operational. The committee acknowledges the continued progress and uptake of the National Criminal Intelligence System. The committee notes that every state and territory is consuming information from the system and that some jurisdictions are working to address quality issues before feeding information into the system. The committee understands that the platform is assisting law enforcement agencies in their frontline operations. The next phase will be to integrate historical data into the NCIS and expand access to this information. The committee will continue to monitor progress of this project. Since 2024, the ACIC has been developing the National Firearms Register. The project is expected to take four years and will streamline information between jurisdictions to help make Australia safer. The committee understands that the ACIC is accelerating the delivery of the register by the end of 2026 so that jurisdictions can integrate into the central component as a matter of priority. The committee commends the ACIC for its efforts in relation to staff wellbeing, retention and recruitment. The committee is pleased to report that the ACIC is attracting high volumes of high-calibre applications through its recruitment processes. Staff wellbeing has also increased from the year prior, and the agency saw a significant improvement in its attrition rate from December 2024 to December 2025. Overall, the committee is pleased with the performance of the ACIC. The committee has monitored and reviewed the performance of the ACIC since 2010. From 4 June 2026, this oversight role will transfer to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. While we are a little sad about losing the oversight role, there needed to be a change in this parliamentary oversight, and it will still be appropriate for ACIC to provide written submissions or appear before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement at public hearings for inquiries relating to serious and organised crime. As such, the committee looks forward to continued engagement with the ACIC. I commend, along with the committee members, their work and thank the officers of the ACIC for their important contribution to reducing the harm to Australia from transnational serious and organised crime. I commend the committee's report to the Senate. I appreciate, as I said, both the AFP and the ACIC, who do their job every day to keep Australians safe. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 282997 Thank you, Senator Polley. I also note your longstanding service on that committee and the important work of that committee. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 82 DOCUMENTS Consideration 82 COMMITTEES 83 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 83 Report 83 16:56 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Over the course of this inquiry, our committee heard from 81 higher education providers and major sector bodies. We received over 200 submissions and held public hearings across three states. The fact that became incredibly clear to us over the course of this inquiry is that poor governance at our universities has failed both staff and students, who told us over and over again that they felt betrayed, undermined and let down. We heard from staff who have dedicated decades to teaching and supporting students but who were shut out from decision-making processes. Students, who were advised that budget cuts had led to overbooked classes, felt like their overall learning experience was being undermined, and, during some classes, we heard, students were sitting on the floor. They could not take a place at the table. Clearly, it is unacceptable for students to not get the education they deserve, students who often leave behind their homes and their families to go to university to fulfill that lifelong dream. We were told that, when students raised their concerns, they felt like they weren't heard. They felt like they were openly dismissed or ridiculed and that they didn't have a say at the table. Staff told us of the insecure work and its impact on their lives, and, in some institutions, we heard 70 per cent of teaching was being performed by casual or sessional staff. And we heard how these staff were working unpaid hours, struggling to access basic entitlements and did not have the security to help underpin the quality of education that their students expected. Staff and students felt betrayed. For many young Australians, tertiary education is the key to unlocking the future they dream of, but poor governance at our universities has let these students down. We made a number of recommendations, including ones which went to executive salaries. Our committee heard that 300 university executives were earning more than their state premiers. I fully understand and accept that universities need to be competitive in the fight for global talent, but they are also public institutions, established for the public good, and it was our committee's view that their salary arrangements should reflect that. In our interim report we recommended that their salaries be guided by new classifications and remuneration ranges set by the Remuneration Tribunal. Our final report added an extra eight recommendations for change, including reviewing rules to ensure public education and research stay front and centre and updating the governance of universities to make sure that leadership reflects that mission. We recommended stronger guidance from TEQSA, improved accountability and more data collection on the number of casual staff and a statement of expectations on internal governance issues. Our recommendations went to a much greater role for TEQSA in monitoring and reporting on course quality and staffing, greater powers when it came to matters in the interests of students, and a positive duty on providers to comply with the threshold standards. These recommendations built upon our interim report and are about ensuring our universities meet the standards and expectations of students, staff and communities at their heart. We need to raise the bar on the governance in higher education, and our report lays out a plan to do that. I want to acknowledge the important work underway by the Minister for Education and the way he has dealt with both our inquiry and the other reviews that have been underfoot. We know that universities will now be required to report annually on their compliance on an 'if not, why not' basis. We know there are big reforms to TEQSA coming thanks to the minister's work and the work of state and territory governments. Our government is going to give TEQSA the power they need to step in and act when required, including on university governance. This report was really significant. It came off the back of staff and students in the sector who were crying out for reform; staff and students who felt thoroughly betrayed in a sector which should be the pinnacle of standards in our community. So many young people strive intensely to go to university and they give up a lot to do so because they know a good university education can and will change their lives—not just their lives but their families' lives—and it will add to the broader development of knowledge and research in our community, which makes Australia competitive and which makes Australia great. But they have been let down by failed governance processes in this sector, and that has to change. There is no longer time for excuses. There is no longer time for delay. There is a road map now thanks to the report of our committee. I want to acknowledge Senator Sheldon and all of the members who served on this committee, including Senator Faruqi and Senator Kovacic as well, for their work in this report. 17:01 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The final report of the university governance inquiry has revealed deep cracks in the institutions that are so key to our economy and the economic empowerment of the next generation of working Australians. The Universities Accord identified: In recent times, our regulatory and university governance arrangements have been too slow to recognise and respond to several important issues … The Fair Work Commission told the inquiry that it had recovered $176 million for 80,000 underpaid higher education staff between 2019 and 2024, and the figure has gone into the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars more. The inquiry heard evidence that up to 70 per cent of teaching is delivered by casual or seasonal staff, many of whom work under precarious conditions, with low pay and no job security. The final report called on universities to embed a staff voice mechanism in their governance structures so there is centralised oversight over wage compliance. Staff voice is a critical part of reform of the sector. The voice is an asset for the running of universities, not a token role that helps university councils manage the expectations of their staff. These staff are among the smartest and brightest in the country at some of the world's top universities, but universities are not using them or their talents. Last year the National Tertiary Education Union released a report which examined the experience of staff representatives who sit on university councils. That report found that only 17 per cent of participants were very positive when asked to describe their board cultures, while 59 per cent were very negative. At the same time, vice-chancellors are outsourcing their responsibilities through consultancy firms that have vested interests. These firms are advising universities on how to restructure their organisations and—surprise—the result is the use of more consultants. Vice-chancellors are handing over the keys to the safe. Consultants should add value and not replace the expertise that is already at universities. The inquiry heard evidence that one in three universities have someone from a consultancy firm on the board. According to recent reporting in the Australian, the sector spent roughly $1.5 billion in external consultants and contractors in 2024. Universities self-govern themselves like a corporation, but without the corporate accountability. I'm not saying these organisations don't need to be successful—a successful university sector is a key to our national interest—but universities are public institutions whose core purpose is for the social good. But the structure and make-up of the university boards have been going in the exact wrong direction. Too many vice-chancellors and chancellors have ducked and weaved when their decisions have been put under scrutiny. There was a report in the Saturday Paper on the weekend that TEQSA chief executive, Mary Russell, had written to ANU's chancellor, Julie Bishop, outlining a series of concerns, including that ANU's governing council was not receiving information that was needed for effective governance, and the same members were not enabled to participate in the governance of ANU because of the impact of others' conduct. This is on top of the shocking spending habits of Julie Bishop herself. She had the university spend $800,000 on a new office for her in Perth, billed ANU $150,000 in a year for travel expenses and has two employees of her own consulting firm working simultaneously in her ANU office. At the same time, ANU were cutting jobs, cutting courses and handing big contracts to Nous Group consultancy firm. More than 95 per cent of ANU staff, when surveyed, said they had no confidence in either the chancellor or the vice-chancellor. The government undertook the Universities Accord to do the investigation into these matters at the same time. That's why Minister Clare has moved to strengthen the powers of TEQSA and introduced a new set of government principles that will be put into law and universities will have to report against them. Minister Clare has reached an agreement with education ministers around the country to establish an independent process for the salaries of senior executives. It is a condemnation of our public institutions that 306 senior executives are earning more than the premiers of the states the universities reside in. I want to thank NTU for their relentless pursuit of high standards in this sector, and dedicate this government to have your back. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 84 Report 84 17:10 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I would like to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's Annual report No. 1 of the 48th parliament. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I was a proud participant in this inquiry, and I was particularly proud to have brought the voices of people with disability into the parliament as well as the disability community as a whole. The report made some very important recommendations, but there are some further issues relation to the NDIS that were not address within this report that I would now like to touch on. A crucial part of the picture when it comes to the NDIS and NDIS participant safeguarding are the harmful impacts of the 2024 NDIS bill and indeed the harms that it meted out upon participants and the harm that is resulting right now from NDIS policies and actions. Let me be very clear. Removing the reasonable and necessary criteria as the basis for funding supports and moving instead to a strict in and out NDIS support list has meant that many people are now unable to access the disability supports that they have relied on for years and are essential to their daily needs. The safety and wellbeing of many disabled people need to be at the centre of the planning process because they are particularly at risk, and the support and wellbeing of all disabled people within the scheme should be at the centre of everything that the NDIA does in relation to decision-making. The in and out support lists are too restrictive. It blocks access to individualised supports that people need, especially people with co-occurring disabilities. We need to return to the reasonable and necessary definition, the basic criteria, of a reasonable and necessary support as the basis for supports funding. Now, people who blow the whistle, who speak up about harm within the NDIS should be protected not punished. Currently, the safeguards within the NDIA act do not provide these protections. The disability sector is the only sector within the purview of the government without these safeguards. They exist in aged care and they exist for those in the broader parts of the corporate economy. Disabled people deserve the same protections. Let me give the Senate a tangible example of the impacts created, of the risks that are run, because these protections don't exist. A worker at an NDIS provider witnesses harm against a participant. They resign and they report it to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Because they are a former employee they aren't covered with whistleblower protections. They have no legal protection. The commission investigates, but since they under no obligation currently to protect the identity of the whistleblower they don't. The result is that someone who did the right thing by reporting harm is financially punished. The Greens would like to see stronger laws that increase protections for whistleblowers. It is so important that people feel safe enough to report harm that they witness with the NDIS. Another big concern is that the upcoming bill introduces a new power that allows the NDIA to request information from a participant or a provider as they submit a claim. These are broad, new powers. There is no limit on the scope of the information that can be requested, and there are no privacy protections in place. That, in and of itself, could result in a system where you are asked, as a participant or a provider, to produce information that you can't produce—not because you don't want to but because you don't have the paperwork—and for that you are punished. We must address these gaps in the system. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Consideration 85 DOCUMENTS 85 DOCUMENTS Housing Australia, State of Australian Cities Report, National Anti-Racism Framework, Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, Home Guarantee Scheme, Cybersafety, Aged Care 85

Housing Australia

State of Australian Cities Report

National Anti-Racism Framework

Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026

Home Guarantee Scheme

Cybersafety

Aged Care

Order for the Production of Documents 85 17:15 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Housing Australia, the State of Australian cities report, the National Anti-Racism Framework, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, the Home Guarantee Scheme, the eSafety Commissioner, the Integrated Assessment Tool and the Support at Home classification system. BILLS 85 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 85

Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026

First Reading 85 17:16 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Senator WALSH 252157 by leave—I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2026 AUTUMN SITTINGS FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (FAIRER FUEL) BILL 2026 Purpose of the Bill The Bill would amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to enable the Fair Work Commission to make road transport contractual chain orders in an expedited manner to respond to circumstances where there are imminent and significant negative, national impacts on the road transport industry, but only where the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has deemed it in the public interest and has expressly authorised the Commission to do so. Reasons for urgency Ongoing conflict in the Middle East has increased fuel prices in Australia and internationally. Fuel is one of the largest costs faced by Australian trucking businesses. However, the road transport industry is characterised by road transport contractual chains, in which large clients at the 'apex' of the chain hold significant power in determining transport costs. In this context, road transport contractors at the end of the chain have limited capacity to raise the rates for their transport services to reflect surging fuel prices, which impacts business viability. Chapter 3B of the Fair Work Act enables the Fair Work Commission to make road transport contractual chain orders which set minimum standards for businesses in a supply chain. A mandatory minimum 6-month period precedes the making of such orders. Enabling orders to be made in an expedited manner in limited circumstances would allow road transport contractors to recoup their costs and maintain business viability in a volatile environment. Question agreed to. Second Reading 86 17:17 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (FAIRER FUEL) BILL 2026 Introduction I move that this bill be now read a second time. Our road transport industry is vital to keeping our nation's economy moving. Without trucks and their drivers, the movement of essential supplies across Australia stops. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has led to sharp spikes in the price of fuel. Anyone who has filled up their car recently knows how much of a financial strain this is causing. These surging costs are being felt by many Australians. But they are particularly being felt by the truckies who deliver the goods that Australian households and businesses depend on. Drivers are the backbone of our economy. Drivers like Justin, who I met earlier this week halfway through his overnight shift, ensuring that food and goods are delivered where they need to go. Government action to support the road transport industry The Albanese Government has already taken a stand to give hard working truckies like Justin a fair go. And that's why in our first term, our government delivered landmark workplace relations reforms with a clear goal of fair minimum standards for employee-like workers and the road transport industry. These were significant changes, which responded to unsustainable practices in the road transport industry putting businesses, workers and their families under immense financial pressure. We fought hard to deliver them. And the Fair Work Commission and the parties are doing their part, carefully working through a number of applications under the new regulated worker provisions. We're also looking after our trucking industry by cracking down on sham contracting, with stronger protections against sham contracting and compliance action from the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office. There are also increased penalties for employers who dodge their obligations to their employees. The Albanese Government is building on these changes to ensure greater fairness, sustainability and resilience through road transport contract chains amid global fuel challenges. The Fairer Fuel Bill This bill is about making sure hard-working truckies and smaller road transport businesses are not pushed to the brink by severe cost shocks. Under the current legislation, the Fair Work Commission must consult when setting contractual chain orders for a minimum of six months. As our country experiences the impact of the war in the Middle East, the Government recognises the need to establish an urgent pathway for truckies and road transport businesses to argue for their fair share in the Fair Work Commission. This bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable the Commission to respond more quickly to contractual chain order applications in time sensitive circumstances. The amendments will allow me, as Minister, to determine that an application can be dealt with more quickly when there is a significant, national, negative impact on the road transport sector and it is in the public interest to act quickly. In doing so, I will need to consider the Road Transport Objective, which requires balancing the interests of businesses and drivers, with a focus on the sustainability of the sector. Once a determination is made, the Commission will be able to make contractual chain orders without the usual 6-month minimum timeframe, so truckies and smaller road transport businesses aren't left to worry about managing rising costs on their own. The requirement on the Commission to consult with parties and step through its processes will remain. It will still be up to the Commission, in consultation with affected parties, to determine the terms of the order, which must be limited to the issues that have triggered my declaration. But this reform means it will be able to act more quickly, helping to maintain business viability in the current, volatile environment. As this bill is about establishing a new pathway to respond to issues urgently, a 6-month limit applies to orders made under the new urgent pathway. After this period, the normal mandatory timeframes will again apply to any ongoing applications made to the Commission. These are complex issues affecting people across the globe. Solutions are not simple, which is why we've given the Commission jurisdiction to work these issues through in a way that recognises the need to act quickly to protect the livelihoods of truck drivers and keep essential supplies flowing across Australia. The strong safeguards we legislated with the Closing Loopholes reforms will continue to apply to the Commission's decision-making. This includes ensuring that industry is adequately consulted and being satisfied that the order will not unduly impact business viability and competitiveness. We also built in a 'failsafe' mechanism allowing parties to apply for an order to be suspended while the Commission considers whether to vary or revoke it. Taken together, these safeguards ensure the Commission can address systemic issues that arise in complex contractual chains, while maintaining confidence that reforms will improve fairness and safety without imposing unreasonable burdens on businesses or undermining industry sustainability. Stakeholder support for the bill The Government's announcement has been widely supported by the road transport industry, including the Australian Road Transport Industrial Association, the Australian Road Freighters Association, the Transport Workers' Union and the Australian Trucking Association, whose CEO Matt Munroe said this week that the ATA stands with the Government in full support of its announcement. Conclusion Ultimately this bill is about fairness, resilience and sustainability in contract chains. It is about ensuring that road transport workers, operators and drivers like Justin are not left to shoulder global shocks on their own. These are the people who keep food on supermarket shelves, materials moving to construction sites, and essential supplies flowing to communities across Australia. This bill ensures that our workplace relations framework can respond when it needs to, quickly, responsibly and in the public interest. I urge you to join the Government in supporting this bill. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 88 BUSINESS Rearrangement 88 17:17 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I move: That consideration of general business not proceed today. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 88 ADJOURNMENT Mining Industry 88 17:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia It's been Minerals Week 2026, and I recognise a sector that does not merely talk about national prosperity but that actually delivers it. It is a timely reminder of something that should be front of mind for this parliament: whether Australia is genuinely backing the industry that powers our economy, funds public services, sustains regional communities and underpins our strategic future. Mining is unlike any other industry in this country. It is the engine room of the Western Australian economy. The same is true of the national economy, which I will come to in a brief moment. In 2024-25 the mining industry supported more than 134,000 jobs, with a further 4,200 in exploration in my home state of Western Australia. WA recorded $220 billion in resources sales and $33 billion in mining and petroleum investment—real jobs, real incomes and real commodities from the Pilbara to the Goldfields, from the Mid West to the Kimberley. A strong resources sector helps fund essential infrastructure and public services without placing additional pressure on households. When mining revenue remains strong it takes the pressure off the government's bottom line, reducing the need for higher taxes or increased borrowing. In 2022-23 alone, the industry paid around $74 billion in taxes and royalties and accounted for 30 per cent of all company tax—more than any other sector in our economy. On the national stage, mining contributed $212.9 billion to GDP in 2024-25, representing 8.1 per cent of the economy. It employed more than 300,000 Australians and supported around 1.25 million jobs in total. This is nation building by any measure. During Minerals Week in particular, the parliament should recognise this contribution and ask itself whether current policy settings are strengthening or weakening this vital sector to our economy. The stakes are rising, particularly with regard to critical minerals. Western Australia holds globally significant reserves of lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earths, materials that will shape supply chains for batteries, advanced manufacturing, defence systems and emerging technologies. Employment in the sector exceeded 25,000 direct jobs in 2023-24. This should be our moment. But there are signs, unfortunately, that we are not fully capitalising on this opportunity. While the Albanese and Cook Labor governments limit their activities to announcements, other nations, particularly China, are moving with both scale and strategic intent. Since 2023, China has committed more than $120 billion into mining and processing projects globally, reducing reliance on Australian exports. Australia cannot afford complacency, yet, under Labor, there is a clear gap between ambition and delivery and an overreliance on the dig-and-ship model. High costs and an increasingly complex regulatory environment mean we struggle to establish competitive downstream processing. This was laid bare last month, with the announcement of the closure of the $1.5 billion Kemerton lithium hydroxide refinery in WA, less than four years after it was opened, costing around 250 jobs. Labor's industrial relations changes are now having real consequences, particular in the Pilbara. Mining companies are reporting a surge in union activity after decades of stability. BHP's chief executive, Mike Henry, has said that the company is now dedicating resources simply to manage the explosion in right-of-entry requests. Rio Tinto's chief executive, Simon Trott, has warned that these changes are disrupting a model that has delivered productivity and stability in the Pilbara for decades. BHP sites recorded nearly 900 right-of-entry requests in 2025 and a further 164 in just the early months of this year. The Minerals Council chair, Andrew Michelmore, warned of the scale of these risks. At the same time, Australia's productivity ranking has slipped from 17th to 21st globally in just a few years. These trends matter. Capital is mobile. Labor's nature-positive laws risk introducing further delay and uncertainty. Where Australia becomes slower, more costly and less predictable, investment will shift. In some cases, it is already happening. Without the right policy settings, we are failing to deliver on their potential. Reducing delays, supporting productivity, providing certainty for investment and recognising the scale of global competition must be our priority. Freedom of Speech 89 17:23 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' This is the peaceful, hopeful cry for freedom that the people of Palestine and their allies have been making for decades. It's a chant that has reverberated across the globe as people have taken to the streets in their millions to demand an end to Israel's genocide in Gaza and an end to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. For the past 2½ years, we've seen a concerted effort by the Israel lobby and its enablers in the media to criminalise speaking the truth about Israel and to criminalise this call for justice. Earlier this month in Queensland, my home state, two young people were arrested in Brisbane for protesting Israel's genocide. One wore a singlet that read, 'From the river to the sea'. The other, Liam Parry, who explained that the words were a call for Palestinian freedom, has been charged under Queensland's new hate speech laws that have prohibited the phrases, 'From the river to the sea,' and, 'Globalise the intifada.' It is very clear what is happening here. After failing miserably to smear and demonise a peaceful movement protesting the slaughter and starvation of Palestinians, governments have unleashed the full force of the state to try to crush dissent and silence those exposing their complicity. And guess what? It's not working either. Palestinians and their allies are still turning up to tell the truth and oppose the genocide, risking their own freedom to fight for a righteous cause that should animate us all. People see Israel for what it is now. The bad-faith accusations of antisemitism have lost their power. An entire generation of young people has watched Israel's war crimes in real time, and they no longer believe the lies. Israel is a colonial apartheid state run by a fascist government that is, even now, trying to expand its territory northwards by invading southern Lebanon. Defence minister Katz even admitted that the invasion of southern Lebanon would follow the model of Rafah in Gaza. 'From the river to the sea' is not hateful. It is a moral, just demand for an end to this apocalyptic madness and a peaceful future for all. As my colleague Senator Faruqi said yesterday: People are choosing courage. Governments are choosing cowardice. We will keep choosing courage. We will not be silenced. No law, no arrest and no threat of prison will change this. The truth does not disappear just because those in power are afraid of it. The charges against Liam Parry and others must be dropped and these draconian anti-free-speech laws overturned. Labor must withdraw support for the Trump-Netanyahu war and demand an immediate end to the bombing of Iran and the invasion of Lebanon. And Palestine must be free—from the river to the sea. Workplace Relations 89 17:26 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia The Australian Labor Party and the Australian trade union movement want a better deal for working people in this country. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association brought an industrial action against the fast food giant KFC to that end. Tens of thousands of KFC employees were not provided the rest breaks that they were legally entitled to. The SDA, on their behalf, brought a case to enforce those rights, and the result was a settlement producing nearly $29 million of compensation for Australian workers to repay them for those entitlements. That's a great result for those KFC workers but it is an important result for workers all over Australia. The case highlights, yet again, this power imbalance that exists between employers and employees and demonstrates the vital role that unions, like the SDA, play in exposing wrongdoing, protecting young workers and upholding our nation's workplace laws. The precedent may apply to other cases underway, but it also serves as a warning to large employers exploiting or mistreating young, casualised, vulnerable or lower-paid workers in this country. Thousands of KFC workers gave evidence that between 2017 and 2023 they were denied 10-minute paid rest breaks, which they were entitled to under law. This wasn't some minor or technical issue or some simple oversight. It was a systematic denial of a rest break, a systemic exploitation of workers so that a corporation—a large corporation, in this case KFC—could improve its profits. For many Australians, fast food chains like KFC provide their first experience with work and their first interaction with a manager. The lead applicant in this case, Roshanpal Singh, summed it up perfectly when he said: Like a lot of young people, this was one of my first real jobs. You don't question things; you just show up and do what you're told. Preventing workers—particularly those working on their feet in a busy, crowded and hot kitchen—from being able to take rest breaks, however short they may seem, increases the risk of fatigue, undermines safety and, in the long term, undermines the wellbeing of those workers. Fellow class action member Lily O'Sullivan rightly pointed out: Those rest breaks weren't a bonus; they were something workers were legally entitled to. We cannot allow large corporations to set this example for young Australians entering the workforce. Individual workers do not bargain on an equal footing with their employers. Individual workers—especially those who are young or who are employed in low-paid, casualised and vulnerable industries, like fast food—cannot take on employers alone. That's where our unions and our labour laws function as a countervailing force to balance some of that inherent inequality. This case shows why strong industrial relations laws matter, and every member of the Albanese Labor government is committed to fighting for strong laws that protect vulnerable workers. The proposed settlement of $28.8 million didn't happen by accident. It happened because workers like Roshanpal and Lily decided to stand up to their employer and seek to vindicate their rights. It happened because the industrial relations system that the Labor Party has worked to improve over years and decades provides legal pathways to hold corporations and franchise networks to account. And it happened because those workers have the support of a strong union, the SDA, that was willing to take up the fight and get the result. And it was a great result, achieved by workers and their union taking the fight to the company. I commend the SDA and its officers for their tireless efforts on behalf of these young workers. But I do want to stress this point: no worker should have to wait years to be paid what they are lawfully owed. No worker should have to wait years to be treated fairly and treated with respect, and this result sends a message: yes, rest breaks matter, but workplace laws matter, workers rights matter and lawful behaviour in the employment context matters. These are not optional. Employers that seek to upsize their profits through the mistreatment of staff or the systemic underpayment of staff, particularly junior staff, will be pursued and they'll be made to pay those entitlements. The ability to seek compensation after the fact is important, but it is imperative that we have strong unions, strong legislation and strong Labor governments to prevent this happening in the first place. Critical and Strategic Minerals Industry 90 17:31 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Liberty Bell Bay, located in the north of my home state of Tasmania, is Australia last manganese smelter and, as such, is a vital piece of nationally strategic infrastructure. Earlier this week, my Tasmanian Liberal colleagues and I called on the Albanese Labor government to step up and intervene to save the jobs at risk at the Liberty Bell Bay smelter. Manganese is essential to steelmaking, lithium-ion batteries and agricultural production. It is a critical input for emissions reduction, renewable energy technologies and advanced manufacturing—industries the Albanese Labor government would have Australians believe they champion. Yet, despite all the rhetoric and policy slogans, such as 'a future made in Australia', the workers and the community at Liberty and across northern Tasmania have been left dangling as collateral damage from the business decisions of Liberty's owner, GFG Alliance. This week, for the second time, the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team wrote to Minister Ayres seeking his direct intervention to save the jobs at Liberty Bell Bay. We are calling for urgent and decisive action on behalf of the workers at the smelter, a significant employer that supports more than 200 workers, their families and the broader region. If Liberty Bell Bay closes, the consequences will be devastating locally: hundreds of jobs will be lost in a region that simply cannot afford it. But the consequences will not stop at the local level. The national implications are just as serious. Australia would become entirely dependent on imported manganese, leaving us more exposed to global supply shocks. Australians already feel the cost of that vulnerability every time they fill up at the petrol browser. If Australia is serious about sovereign capability and supply chain resilience, this is precisely the type of facility that should be protected. The Albanese Labor government's stated commitment to the renewable energy transition and reducing emissions in industries such as construction will rely heavily on manganese as a critical mineral supporting that transition. Australians are already paying the price for the government's decisions on advanced manufacturing, and that cost is becoming more evident by the day as instability in the Middle East continues. Labor has not been upfront. The economy is weak and fuel supplies are just not guaranteed. Losing the last manganese smelter in the country would take us further down that same path. We must secure the critical assets we still have, before Australia loses yet another element of its advanced manufacturing capability. The Albanese Labor government has already shown that it is willing to intervene when it suits politically. Taxpayers are underwriting a $2.4 billion bailout of the Whyalla Steelworks, also owned by GFG Alliance. The hypocrisy is stark. Indeed, just yesterday the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Tim Ayres, announced a $2 billion bailout of the Boyne aluminium smelter in Queensland, the latest in a long list of support packages for smelters across the country facing financial pressures similar to Liberty Bell Bay. Under the Albanese Labor government, taxpayers have already funded $2 billion for the Boyne aluminium, $1 billion for Tomago Aluminium, $2 billion for Whyalla Steelworks, $600 million for Mount Isa copper and $135 million for Nyrstar. Yet the workers at Liberty Bell Bay have been abandoned by the federal member for Bass, Jess Teesdale, by Minister Ayres and by the entire Albanese Labor government, which appears content to watch these jobs disappear on its watch. Why are jobs in Tasmania considered expendable while jobs in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia are deemed worth saving? The Labor government must stop treating Tasmania as a second-class state and step up to intervene, help find a buyer and save these jobs, just as it has done for other states. Tasmania deserves the same treatment and the same deal as other communities across the country. It is time for Jess Teesdale and the Albanese Labor government to turn their words into action and step up to save these jobs. Middle East 91 17:35 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Last week, millions of people around the world, including here in Australia, marked Nowruz, the Iranian new year, a time of renewal, hope and peace. But, as communities gathered, we have seen a dangerous escalation between Iran and Israel, with missiles, drones, retaliation and civilians caught in the crossfire. But I also want to be very clear: the Iranian people are not the Islamic Iranian regime. They are a proud, ancient civilisation. They have also shown extraordinary courage in recent years, particularly women leading protests, young people demanding freedom and citizens risking everything to stand against repression. Too often, however, the distinction is erased in domestic debates. Most consistently, it is erased by those who claim to speak the loudest in the name of peace. What we hear from the Australian Greens and parts of the anti-AUKUS movement is not principled antiwar advocacy; it is selective outrage that is dressed up as morality. They lecture us about militarisation. They oppose AUKUS, claiming it makes Australia less safe. They call for the dismantling of our strategic partnerships without offering any credible alternatives. But when it comes to regimes like that in Tehran—one that jails its own citizens for protesting, crushes dissent and exports instability around the world—moral certainty seems to evaporate. Suddenly, the language also becomes cautious. Outrage becomes optional. This is not antiwar; this is anti-West and anti-Australia. The pattern is unmistakable. When democratic allies act, they condemn; when authoritarian regimes act, they contextualise; when Australia strengthens its defences, they protest; and, when others escalate, they remain silent. This is not foreign policy; it is an ideological reflex, and it comes at a cost. It sends a message that some aggression is more excusable than others, some victims matter less and some regimes are held to a lower standard. In doing so, it abandons the very people it claims to stand for, including the people of Iran. If you truly stand for human rights, if you stand for Iranians protesting in the streets, if you stand for those political prisoners and if you stand for those risking their lives for freedom, you should not soften your language when it becomes inconvenient. Peace is not maintained by slogans or wishful thinking; it is maintained by strength, alliances and, importantly, deterrence, and that is something that the Foreign minister has made very clear day after day in question time this week. That is the purpose of partnerships like AUKUS—not to provoke conflict but to prevent it. That is why Australia is acting to support our friends in times of need. In response to Iran's missile and drone attacks across the gulf, Australia has provided practical military support to the United Arab Emirates. This includes a RAAF Wedgetail aircraft alongside dozens of ADF personnel and advanced air-to-air missiles to defend against incoming threats. This is not symbolic; this support is tangible. These are real deployments protecting real people in real danger. It is important to remember that the same Wedgetail that monitored the skies over Germany and Poland, to help protect Ukraine, is now flying in the gulf's skies, helping defend our partners from Iranian attacks. Ukraine, in turn, is helping the gulf states defend against the same Iranian-made Shahed drones that had been killing Ukrainians for many years. So, when some dismiss our alliances or pretend that these partnerships are theoretical, this is what they are dismissing: Australians serving in harm's way and standing with our partners to prevent escalation. Yet, they still cannot answer a basic question: if Australia should not stand with partners like the UAE when they face those missiles and drone attacks, then what is the alternative? We must be clear about the world today. It is more dangerous and more contested and demands more than performative politics. Australia stands for de-escalation. We stand for international law and for the protection of civilians everywhere. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 17:40