I move:

That, subject to restoration to the Notice Paper, private senators' bills be considered this week as follows:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022—today; and

Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024—on Thursday, 24 July 2025.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I'm very proud and pleased that today we start this new parliament, the 48th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, by debating a bill which is so important to the safety of our climate, the protection of our environment and the future of our children and generations to come.

For far too long our environment laws have ignored the biggest threat to nature and to humanity, and that is the climate crisis. For far too long our environment laws have been contradictory. The environment minister is required to assess, with advice from his department and proponents, the merits of a particular project—whether that be a big industrial development, a new coalmine or an expansion of a gas plant. While assessing the environmental concerns, damages and impacts in each of these assessments, the minister is actively stopped from considering the environmental damage of the pollution that any of these projects create.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022, which would introduce a climate trigger into Australian law to ensure that the environment minister must assess the climate damage—the climate pollution—of a project before giving it a tick of approval, just makes sense. We're in 2025, and our environment is under extreme stress. We're in 2025, and the climate crisis is not something off in the future; it is unfolding before our very eyes. All you need to do is look at what's happening on the coastline and along the beaches in my home state of South Australia. The deadly, toxic algae that has engulfed our waters, killing our marine life and polluting our local beaches, is the direct result of the warming ocean. All the experts—the climate experts, the marine biologists, the state and federal government owned departments—acknowledge that this deadly, toxic algae is the result of climate change.

These horrific scenes of death and destruction that we are seeing on a daily basis on the beaches in Adelaide and around our South Australian coast are not just a stark reminder of what is happening to our natural environment beneath the surface of the oceans and seas; they are now having huge ramifications for the community at large. Our state economy is powered by our clean, green agriculture industry, our seafood exports and our tourism trade. Our fishing industry has been smashed because of this deadly, toxic algae. Our tourism industry is crippled because of this deadly, toxic algae. Our community is anxious, worried and deeply distressed about the situation that is unfolding.

Nature is copping the brunt of it all. Only last week we saw a dead dolphin washed up just outside the Brighton and Seacliff Yacht Club. Only two days prior we held a community forum in that yacht club of concerned locals, concerned members of the fishing and the tourism industries, and scientists. Two days later we saw the distressing scene of a dead dolphin washed up right in front of that yacht club. It has shaken our community.

South Australians are horrified and heartbroken, but they're scared. They're scared because all of the warnings that the scientists gave of how crippling and disastrous the climate crisis would be are now unfolding and getting worse day after day. Ken Henry, the former secretary of the Treasury department, last week called out the nonsense of pretending you could have an economy without having a healthy environment. When you have the heads and former heads of Treasury saying the environment crisis is now an economic crisis, it's time that this parliament acted. It's not the economy, stupid; it's the environment, stupid.

The impact of the climate pollution that is being created from the fossil fuel production and expansion is now killing our oceans, crippling our industries, killing local jobs and creating a looming health crisis. So what do we do about it? One of the things we could do is stop making the problem worse. There's a lot of carbon pollution being created already. A lot of work has to be done to reduce the pollution that is already being created. But you can't keep pouring fuel on the fire and thinking the problem will go away.

This piece of legislation would put into law, for the first time, a requirement that the government and the responsible minister consider, assess and take seriously climate pollution, carbon pollution and the damage that fossil fuels are doing before saying that something can be approved. It is absolute nonsense, in 2025, to have an environment minister approve the expansion of a huge gas project like the North West Shelf Project, Woodside's big polluting gas project, without even considering the climate damage that that project will do, and say that it passes all of the required environmental checks and balances. It clearly does not.

We don't have laws that are fit for purpose. And I understand—the science has become clearer; the urgency has become more acute. But it is time that we modernise our laws to make them fit for the challenges of the modern world, and the biggest challenge we have of all is how we respond to the climate crisis, deal with the pollution that already exists and do everything we can to stop making the problem worse.

The Greens have been calling for a climate trigger in our national laws for a long time. But, actually, we weren't the first ones to think of it. Even the Prime Minister himself, Anthony Albanese, in 2005, 20 years ago, introduced a bill in the other place, calling for the exact same thing. Twenty years ago, the Prime Minister was ahead of the curve; 20 years later, I ask him to stop playing catch-up.

It makes absolutely no sense to have laws in this country that allow environmental approval while actively and deliberately ignoring the biggest environmental threat of all. It makes no sense to the scientists, it makes no sense to the legislators, and it makes no sense to the community. We've got to get serious about the crisis that is now unfolding on our shores and in our communities and that is crippling our economy and industries. A climate assessment, a climate trigger, would give the government of the day and the minister of the day the power to do what we all know is needed—to put a clamp on making the problem worse.

I stand here and I advocate, on behalf of my Greens colleagues, the urgency of this reform, because we can see that Mother Nature is at her wits' end. We can see that our animals, our marine life and our wildlife, are suffocating, and we can see that our economy will be crippled unless we get this right. And our communities deserve better. In such times of uncertainty, the role of parliament and government is to act to help communities be safe, to provide assurance and comfort and to ensure that the community is listened to. The government needs to act on this. I say this and I advocate this from a position of knowledge, from a position backed by science and from a position that has been advocated by experts across the board from the most conservative economic position through to those who just care about the existence of our natural world and wildlife.

But today we are going to hear cries and screams and squeals against this reform from people who don't even believe that this disaster is already upon us. When I started prepping for what I was going to say this morning, I looked at the front page of the Australian newspaper. And what is on the front page of the Australian today? Mr Barnaby Joyce wanting to wreck climate action again in this country. The Liberal and National parties have no idea what to do and what they should do for the good of this nation. They're more interested in tearing each other apart, plotting against their leaders and using the climate crisis as their excuse. If there were ever a shill for the fossil fuel industry in this place, it's the National Party.

So don't be fooled in this debate this morning by those who have no interest in settling this issue properly or in dealing with the crisis at hand. The only crisis the National Party is interested in is the crisis of its own leader. We need more maturity in this place, and I urge the government to ignore the rabble from the other side who have no care for the environment, who are more worried about their leadership speculations and who are more worried about wrecking climate action, ripping up our renewable energy industry and throwing the country into disarray—selfish, selfish, selfish. Ignore them and work in the interests of nature. (Time expired)

Before I call Senator Grogan, I will remind everyone carrying on other conversations in the chamber to keep their voices down.

I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her contribution on this bill. The Albanese government will not be supporting the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022. Since this bill was introduced in 2022, quite a lot has changed. You would not think so after listening to my colleagues in the Greens, but a lot of action has been undertaken. There has been a lot of change. But, if we understand how our environment works, how our economy works and how our society works, these things do not change overnight. You don't just snap your fingers and solve climate change.

We all know that we spent a very long, painful and agonising decade with the coalition in charge, undoing any work that the previous Labor government had put together to address climate change and, as Senator Hanson-Young rightly points out, tearing each other apart in their own party room and working desperately to take no action on climate change. As some of them do openly admit, they actually don't believe that climate change is a thing. They don't believe it's real. They don't believe that the scientists are correct. They don't see the growing anxiety and disaster that is looming across the world because of the issue of climate change. And not to leave our new colleagues on the crossbench over there out of the picture—they don't believe in climate change either. Welcome to you both.

We're in a situation where Australia needs to take strong action. We need to continue to take strong action. We need to address the situations that we are starting to see. As we know, the algal bloom in South Australia has in part been connected to the warming ocean tides that we've seen in the last few months. As a government, you can't just go and turn the regulator down. You can't just go: 'Ooh, it's a bit hot. Let's turn the ocean down.' You actually have to take real, sustainable, long-term action to reduce emissions, and that takes a lot of hard work. Transforming our economy takes a lot of hard work. Changing Australia to be a sustainable green industry takes time. And that's not an excuse—that is a fact. To reorient our economy and our actions takes time. We have done a great deal in the first term of the Labor government. We have made significant inroads. Is it enough? No, and not once have we said that it is. Do we need to continue to strengthen our action? Do we need to continue to take action? Yes, we do.

But the problem we face—and we see it in this chamber all the time—is that we stand here on the government benches taking action, looking to the future of Australia, building Australia into a long-term sustainable economic future—

Approving coalmines, approving gas mines.

You want to deindustrialise our country, Sarah?

and, as we do that—while I stand here and Senator McKenzie and Senator Hanson-Young yell at each other across the chamber, one wanting everything and one wanting nothing, which is the cry we hear from both of you all the time. You are the problem, people. You are the problem. So taking action requires our colleagues to get a grip. Senator Hanson-Young said, 'It's not the economy, stupid; it's the environment, stupid.' Well, I would say that it's the economy and the environment, stupid. You cannot just pick one. You say: 'Right, everything for business and let's trash the environment. Everything for the environment and let's trash the economy.' Come on! There is a pathway through the middle here. If you guys would get on board—just get on board!—we could make some fundamental changes. We could move quicker, Senator Hanson-Young, if your party were not so obstructionist.

So we have made significant inroads. We have a very strong policy agenda to reduce emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Yes, we know that there are those out there who would like those things to happen tomorrow, but that's not practical. That's not going to happen. The transition will happen, but it will happen in a managed fashion that keeps this country moving forward to be stronger, to be more sustainable, to protect our environment, to reduce our emissions and to do what we can right now and plan for the future of a zero-emissions future.

We have got some of the world's best resources: wind and solar. We've got some of the best technologies. We've made great inroads in renewables and battery storage, connecting it into the grid. We can make our systems more reliable, both in the grid and in our household systems. We have hundreds of thousands of solar panels. We are leading the charge in putting solar panels on houses. And we are now, as of the more recent Labor policy and action on battery storage, providing opportunities for people to put batteries on their houses. This will make a difference not only to our emissions profile but also, significantly, to the cost of energy for households. We've got a Climate Change Act that has very clear emissions reduction targets in it. It is a strong, articulated pathway—not just an idea, not just a target, but a plan and a pathway to actually achieve it.

Our Capacity Investment Scheme, which is ensuring we have enough affordable and reliable electricity, will be brought into the grid to meet that demand from now through to 2030. This scheme has exceeded all of our expectations. We received bids that were 4½ times what the actual tender was for. That sort of interest being shown is excellent to see. It shows that we have the capacity to ramp up. It shows we have the capacity to increase and improve what we're doing in these areas. We know that our emissions for the year to December 2024 were 27 per cent below our 2005 levels. That's not nothing, I say to my colleagues on the Greens benches over there. That is not nothing; that's a 27 per cent reduction. That is a good step.

We need more than that.

Yes, of course we know we need more, but that can't be the only thing you ever say. Seriously, you are the problem if all you're ever going to say is that it's not enough. Nothing's ever good enough. We're actually taking action. We are making a fundamental difference here to the future of Australia.

The farmers are.

And what exactly does Senator McKenzie think the farmers are going to do when the land is unfarmable due to climate change? What is she going do then?

Senator Grogan, could you please resume your seat. I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly. Senator Grogan, please direct your comments through the chair. That may assist in others not interjecting. Senator Grogan, you have the call.

Thank you, Deputy President. I will refrain from responding to my colleagues around the chamber.

In addition to the great strides on emissions we are making as a Labor government—great achievements in only three short years—there is the issue of the environmental impacts that Senator Hanson-Young was referring to earlier. But we are doing more to protect the environment than has been done in an excruciatingly, painfully long time. We are protecting more nature than was being protected before. We have plans to improve that further.

One of the things that many of us have been talking about—I know for myself since 2013—is the EPBC, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which is cited by so many scientists and eminent people, including in a fantastic presentation from the amazing Ken Henry at the Press Club last week. Our environment laws don't suit anyone. They do not protect the environment. They do not assist us in any of our developments. Often in this chamber you would think that the EPBC Act only dealt with mining approvals, whereas that is very much a minor part of its work. A significant amount of the work that the EPBC does is in housing developments. And, just in case anyone missed it, we've got a bit of a housing crisis going on.

We need these laws to work, and what we went through in the decade under the coalition government was nothing short of horrendous. We came into government and were thwarted on every side in trying to do our piece of reform. But the numbers have changed a bit up here, and they've changed a bit in the other house, so the minister is adamant and determined that we are going to get a new set of environment laws within the first 18 months of this government. If we're lucky it might be sooner, but there are a lot of views and it is a very complex piece of legislation. We need to make these changes. We must have stronger environmental protection, we must have a more efficient and robust project assessment system, and we must have greater accountability and transparency in all of our decision-making.

The EPBC agenda is going to be rattled out in this place. There will be standing up and yelling at each other, I'm sure, about too much or not enough. How about everyone taking a breath and thinking about the future, and not just about the bit of the future you care about—whether it be only the environment over here or only business over there? How about we recognise the fact that every single one of us in this chamber was elected by the people of this country. So both views need to be taken into consideration, and there needs to be balance in how we make our way through this whole agenda and finally get an outcome—an outcome that is going to protect our environment, work towards our targets on climate change and reduce our emissions even further, noting that we have reduced them quite significantly already. Let us get an outcome that will see a long-term future for this country with a robust environment—a zero-emissions future—and an economy that can grow on a sustainable zero-emissions basis.

The future is there; we can see it. We know the pathway forward. We know that there is a perfect opportunity for us to build a manufacturing industry into the future that is not emissions-intensive and actually gives us things like green steel—manufacturing that is built for a future that deals openly with climate change, recognises the science, recognises what's happening to our country and actually takes meaningful action that protects our society. And protecting our society means taking those things into consideration together. So, no, we will not be supporting the bill. We will be working as hard as we can to try to find that pathway through for a reformed EPBC Act, and we will continue to meaningfully reduce our emissions and transition our environment, transition our energy system and build an Australia we can all be proud of that will be sustainable into the future.

Before I come to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022, I might quickly respond to some of the misleading claims that were just made by Senator Grogan. Senator Grogan has been saying or suggesting that the current Labor government has reduced Australia's emissions. I just checked their own accounts—their own greenhouse gas accounts—on the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's website. Emissions have actually gone up. They've gone up under this government. So I'm not exactly sure what Senator Grogan was claiming in the last contribution we heard. She claimed they were taking action to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, when they got to power at the end of 2021, our carbon emissions were 440 million tonnes a year. By 2023, the last available year in their dataset, they were 453 million tonnes a year. They have gone up by 13 million tonnes a year. So we could pretty much strike out all of what Senator Grogan said just before, because basically her whole contribution was based, apparently, on them reducing carbon emissions, which they haven't actually done according to their own data.

To take the broader point, Senator Grogan is right that Australia's carbon emissions, as a whole, have reduced. It was not under this government, but they have reduced since the mid-2000s. In 2005, which was the date set under the Kyoto agreement, our emissions were 611 million tonnes a year. They are, as I said, 453 million tonnes, so they've gone down roughly 160 million tonnes a year. Almost all of that reduction has occurred through putting greater restrictions on our nation's farmers to be able to develop their own land. The so-called land use change category in the carbon accounts has reduced emissions by 150 million tonnes a year. That is 150 million tonnes of the 160 million tonnes that we have reduced as a country. That land use change is largely because state governments have put massive restrictions on farmers being able to clear their own property and their own land. Through the vagaries of the pretty dodgy carbon accounting schemes we have, we're allowed to say that that's a credit and it's reducing our emissions because we're not clearing as much land as we used to. Work that out at home, if you can.

Bringing myself back to the actual bill, I do support Senator Grogan in saying that this bill is not needed. It is misdirected, and it is trying to change the wrong piece of legislation to tackle this goal. I may get time later to come to the broader issues of climate change policy, but, to take the objective of what Senator Hanson-Young is trying to achieve at its face value, her own aims will not be achieved by this bill—and can't be. This bill would seek to change the temperature of the globe and stop algal blooms in South Australia, apparently by assessing the carbon emission impact on a project-by-project basis. The way the EPBC works is projects come forward for approval through our environmental law system, and the Greens are suggesting that, somehow, we would stop a project on an individual basis because of its individual impact on global temperatures and global carbon emissions.

Senator Hanson-Young pointed to the North West Shelf project, which has been conditionally approved by this government, and I welcome that. It's not completely through yet, but it would have scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions of around eight million tonnes a year—some say a little bit less, but let's take the higher amount. Let's say we get this legislation passed and we stop the North West Shelf project; if you take the IPCC formulas for the impact of carbon emissions on temperatures, stopping the North West Shelf project would lower global temperatures by a sum total of 0.000121 degrees Celsius. I don't know if that's going to stop the algal blooms in South Australia, but it seems unlikely that a change in the temperature of 0.0001 degrees Celsius is going to have a material impact on any of us. Yet that was the premise of the whole of Senator Hanson-Young's contribution. She is promising the Australian people that if we stop this one project then the weather will change in this country. That is completely and utterly absurd. It treats the Australian people like morons—they're not. Senator Hanson-Young was saying we're all stupid. No, no—I'm with stupid in this chamber! It is completely stupid to sit here and say that stopping one project is going to have a material impact on the world's climate or weather, but that's what this whole bill is trying to do. It should be rejected on that basis alone.

We know that this is inconsistent with the original objects of the EPBC Act, which has been around for a long time and does have its problems. But we know this is inconsistent with the original objectives because this matter was spoken about in the second reading speech of the EPBC Act, which then senator Robert Hill introduced. He said, in that second reading speech:

Ultimately, of course, we need more than just the best possible environmental law regime to protect Australia's environment and promote ecologically sustainable development … reducing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions is being achieved through a $180 million policy announced last year.

Clearly, the intent of the government and the parliament that passed this act was to say this act is dealing with some elements of the need to protect our nation's environment, but it is not tackling issues—there were some others he mentioned—and is not precisely aimed at tackling greenhouse gas emissions. It's not the vehicle to do that. It is just not set up to do this in a proper way. It would be completely absurd to stop projects like the North West Shelf given their minimal impact alone on the climate.

We are led to believe by the mover of the motion on this bill, Senator Hanson-Young, that somehow Australia would be getting left behind if we didn't pass this bill and that somehow the rest of the world is taking significant action on climate change. Again, there is very little evidence or facts provided to back that statement up—it is simply asserted. But all of that data is available.

Indeed, there has been some new data released in the last few weeks by the eminent Statistical Review of World Energy—it is the bible on all of these matters—which is now conducted by the Energy Institute. It is the best data source of all the different energy sources that are used around the world and it has a very good series on greenhouse gas emissions as well. That data released a few weeks ago showed that since the world signed up to this fantastical concept of net zero emissions in late 2021 at the Glasgow climate conference—the world signed up to net zero, apparently. We're constantly being told that the world is now reducing carbon emissions, and we're getting to net zero and we're going to get there—rah, rah, rah. We've now got three years of data since 2021, and since then global carbon emissions are up by 1.7 billion tonnes a year. Every year the world is emitting 1.7 billion tonnes more. This is a very inconvenient fact for those that stand in this chamber and say that the rest of the world is acting.

That none of them ever deal with it shows how inconvenient and embarrassing it is. It would be worth it, if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, to actually tackle the fact. How can you stand there and say that the world is acting on climate change when, actually, emissions have gone up by almost two billion tonnes in just the three years since this agreement was signed? Keep in mind how much that is. As I said earlier, Australia—thanks to the Labor government, we're now a bit higher than we were before they got elected—now emits 450 million tonnes a year. The world has increased its emissions by more than three times what we produce in any one year just in the last three years. So can we drop the act that the rest of the world is acting? It's not. They're not acting. They're not changing. They are continuing to produce energy for people who often don't quite have access to the 24 hours of electricity that we are lucky to have. All evidence points to the fact that countries are going to continue to do that. They're going to continue to prioritise the energy needs of their people—often, poor people, much poorer than us—rather than deal with or tackle the obsession with luxury items that those of us in the West seem to have.

It is true that some countries have reduced their emissions. They have largely lost their industry too. It is, I think, constructive to focus a little bit on those who are increasing their carbon emissions and why they might be doing that. We're constantly told that the coal industry is dying or that no-one will buy our coal anymore. I notice that Senator Grogan mentioned we've got great solar and wind resources—I agree with that—but we also have great coal resources in this country as well. The Labor Party doesn't mention that very often anymore. They're fantastic coal resources; we sell them to the world. Another inconvenient fact is that Energy Institute data shows that since net zero emissions were agreed to by the world, the world has been mining 1.2 billion tonnes more coal than it did beforehand. Putting that in context, we mine an amount of coal similar to the amount of our carbon emissions. That's 450-odd million tonnes a year of coal from Australia, and the increase has been more than double what we mined just in the last three years.

Another way that I like to put this into context is this. I think most people remember this thing called the Adani Carmichael coalmine. It was a little bit controversial a few years ago. It was the North West Shelf of a few years ago. If Sarah Hanson-Young had been giving this speech five or six years ago, no doubt Adani would have gotten a very liberal mention in her contribution. They don't mention it anymore. It is actually up and running; the mine is going. The planet hasn't blown up yet, but the mine is employing 1,200 people in North Queensland. It produces about 10 million tonnes a year. It's been a little bit more than that lately, but it's a nice round figure of 10 million tonnes a year. That's basically the Adani Carmichael mine.

I'll start at the bottom. Mongolia has increased its coalmining by 74 million tonnes per annum since net zero came into effect; that's seven Adani mines it's opened up. Indonesia have increased their coalmining by 222 million tonnes a year; they've opened 22 Adani mines in three years. Did you hear about it? Did anyone read about that in the newspaper? It was front page news in this country: opening up one Adani—one mine—of 10 million tonnes a year. But when Indonesia opens up 22 of them, there's nary a mention. I might come back to that stat, if I've got time, of the story of Indonesia. India have increased their coalmining by 273 million tonnes a year, so that's 27 Adani mines. Good luck to them. They've got much lower electricity prices than we do. But—wait for it—we can't, of course, forget our friend China. China has increased its coalmining by 654 million tonnes a year. It's opened up 65 Adani Carmichael coal mines in just three years. China produces almost six billion tonnes of coal a year, but it has increased that by 654 just in the last three years. I have to give the Chinese government officials much respect; they can keep a straight face when they talk to us about green steel and reducing emissions. Meanwhile, I bet you the Prime Minister didn't mention the fact that they increased their coalmining by 654 million tonnes. If he really cared about climate change, wouldn't he mention that?

We, little old Australia, have signed up to net zero. We haven't actually reduced our emissions, but we have destroyed our energy grid trying to. Since we signed up to net zero, electricity prices would have gone up by 30 per cent if it weren't for the enormous government subsidies, which are ending soon. The price of gas is up 39 per cent, and that is why everybody is struggling in this country. Meanwhile, we're losing our industry.

I mentioned I might come back to that Indonesian figure. Indonesia has increased coalmining by that massive amount. Why has it done that? Well, a big, big reason for its increase in coalmining—Indonesia has increased its coal-fired power as well; we think about 20 new coal-fired power stations have been built in Indonesia in the last three years, which is more than we have in this country—is that Indonesia has fuelled a massive expansion in nickel smelting. A great documentary on Channel 7 recently investigated it.

But, again, it gets very little commentary here, while we talk about this thing—that one of our closest neighbours are not only increasing their carbon emissions; they are doing so to massively expand their nickel smelting, and the effect of that has been to shut Australia's nickel refinery and nickel smelter. We've lost the nickel industry but for a couple of nickel mines that are left. We've lost 10,000 jobs in this country because of that, and it never gets mentioned. Other countries are laughing at us while we destroy our energy competitiveness and they just go on with gay abandon, expanding coalmining, building coal-fired power stations and taking our jobs.

Yesterday I was trying to listen intently to the Governor-General's address. It became a bit of a laundry list for the Labor Party, but I was trying to listen intently. One thing I did note was that there was not a single mention from the Governor-General yesterday of the Labor Party lowering electricity prices. Did anyone else notice that?

I went back and had a look. In 2022 the then governor-general David Hurley did say that his government, the then Labor government, would help reduce electricity bills by hundreds of dollars for families and businesses. That's what he said. Now, did that happen? I don't think it did. They didn't live up to that commitment. Electricity bills went up, and yesterday the Labor Party flew the white flag on the cost-of-living crisis that is still afflicting Australians. Now they're not even mentioning it.

They'll mention this clean energy stuff. Who cares! Okay, great, it's clean, but why am I paying thousands of dollars more a year for it? Why can't I have the same lower prices as other countries?

I rise to support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022, and I thank my colleague Senator Hanson-Young for bringing this bill forward. This bill is an important and vital step towards climate justice, a long-overdue reform that recognises the climate crisis as the most significant threat to our natural environments and begins the work of aligning our environmental laws with the science and the lived reality of communities right across this country.

The 48th Parliament convenes at a critical time. We are not on the precipice of the climate crisis; we are already in it. Across Australia and across the world, the canary in the coalmine is no longer singing; it is screaming. Floods, droughts, cyclones, toxic algal blooms—the climate impacts scientists have long warned us about are no longer future risks; they are happening now, and the waves are literally lapping at our doors. So the question for the parliament is simple: will the Labor government finally act to protect people and planet, or will it continue to serve the dirty interests of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our future?

The record so far is deeply concerning. In the last term of parliament, Labor approved over 30 new coal and gas projects. In only its first month post-election, cynically, the government gave approval for the North West Shelf Project Extension, a massive carbon bomb that locks Australia into pollution until 2070. My seven-year-old will be in his 50s and this climate bomb will still be being mined and burnt. That decision commits future generations to decades of carbon emissions, even as communities are facing escalating climate crises.

And this pattern continues. Right now, multiple new coal and gas projects are under assessment through the EPBC Act, yet there is still no requirement for the government to consider the climate change that these projects will cause over their life spans. How many more dolphins, rays and sharks need to wash up on South Australia's beaches? How many more homes must become uninsurable because of flood or cyclone risk? How many more communities must lose their livelihoods to bushfires before this government stops pretending climate change is an abstract problem that it can tackle with words and goodwill alone? Time and time again the Labor government pats itself on the back for lofty climate promises and headline targets without meaningful policy action to back them up. You cannot solve the climate crisis through press releases or through a bid for COP. While communities are hit by fires, floods and food insecurity, Labor continues to approve new coal and gas that drives the crisis they claim to be addressing.

This bill is a vital intervention. It would require the minister to take climate impacts of projects considered under environmental law into account, and it would prevent the approval of major polluting projects that undermine our national and global climate targets and responsibilities. That is the very least we owe to our communities, the very least we owe to our children.

This isn't a hypothetical. The damage is already being felt right here in communities, including those close to my own home. Across western Victoria and South Australia, farmers and regional communities are in the grip of a devastating drought. For the past 15 months rainfall has been at record lows, with western and south-western Victoria seeing the lowest average rainfall in 126 years. Feed for livestock has all but disappeared. Water sources are drying up and families are struggling with soaring costs just to stay on the land they have worked for generations and to keep producing the food that we all rely on. My heart breaks for these communities. As a fifth generation farmer from central Victoria, I know the toll that drought takes. It's not just the financial pressure; it's the emotional strain. It wears down livelihoods, mental health, families and entire communities. While parts of Victoria saw increased rain in June, for many the future remains deeply uncertain because we are in the midst of a climate crisis where our planet is getting hotter, droughts are more frequent and intense, and farmers and their communities are finding it harder than ever to stay on their land.

Let's make no mistake, this is a crisis that is driven by greed—the greed of coal and gas corporations who continue to wreck our climate and environment just to boost their bottom line, and the greed of the major parties who continue to line their pockets with donations from fossil fuel corporations while refusing to take any meaningful action that our communities so desperately need. I cannot believe in 2025 we are still allowed to receive corporate donations from the very people wrecking this planet. The mind boggles.

We have seen exactly what it looks like in practice, with approval of new coal and gas projects with no sign of slowing down or changing course. I will just say that communities in Victoria were dumbfounded that Labor could go and approve the North West Shelf Project straight after the election. What an insult to those people who put their trust in that party. Farmers, regional communities and the whole of Australia deserve better. We deserve a government that represents the interests of people and the environment, not corporations. I don't know how many times we need to keep saying that. From the farms of western Victoria to the low-lying islands of the Torres Strait, communities, livelihoods and their way of life is under threat—a direct result of the climate crisis and decades of government inaction.

I want to express my deepest solidarity with Uncle Paul and Uncle Pabai. They are bringing the fight for climate justice to our courts. Despite the disappointing Federal Court ruling, the judge acknowledged the devastating impact of climate change on the Torres Strait Islands, from shoreline erosion to coral reef damage and the loss of traditional food sources and culture. Communities like Saibai and Boigu are already living the crisis. Sea levels in the Torres Strait are rising six to eight millimetres every year, more than double the global average, and have risen about six centimetres in the past decade. If temperatures rise above 1.5, as they are predicted to do, many islands will become uninhabitable. Without deep emission cuts, sea levels could rise more than a metre by the end of the century, flooding irreplaceable sacred sites, including burial grounds. What the court could not do in law, parliament must do in action. Customary ways of life and millennia of cultural heritage stand to disappear if we fail to slash emissions now. In court the elders said:

If Boigu was gone, or I had to leave it, because it was underwater, I will be nothing … I will become nobody.

Farther from home, within the next 24 hours, the International Court of Justice is expected to deliver its advisory opinion on states' legal obligations regarding climate change, a landmark case brought by Vanuatu and supported by over 100 countries. Young people across the Pacific islands are taking the world's biggest issue, climate change, to the world's highest court. The Greens stand with them in solidarity and are incredibly disappointed by the evidence that the Australian government put forward to that case, basically saying that Australia doesn't have a responsibility under global obligations to drive down emissions. Shame on this government! This moment could reshape how international law holds major polluters accountable and strengthen the case for loss-and-damage funding for vulnerable nations. It reaffirms that this is a pivotal time for governments to reflect on and act on their obligations to deliver climate justice, something the Albanese government is still failing to do.

How did we get here? The fossil-fuel lobby's grip on government is deep, systemic and corrosive. From revolving doors to secret meetings, fossil-fuel interests shape our politics and our policies, not the communities facing rising seas. Woodside itself was invited to the Treasurer's economic roundtable last week, even as it pushes ahead with gas expansion that will plague us for generations. Come on! Meanwhile, the government continues to approve new gas fields, even though 80 per cent of Australia's gas is exported offshore, delivering minimal public return. I hear the Nats say, 'One mine's not going to make a difference,' but, if we all think like that, of course it's not. We are in this place to lead—to show leadership—not to follow. This is not transparency or democracy; it's a state captured by corporate greed. Political access is clearly for sale, and lobbyists are literally writing the rules in this place.

This influence is blocking action. It's why the government fast-tracked the North West Shelf extension, a 70-year carbon bomb, and why coal and gas projects continue to be signed off on with no signs of slowing down. We've heard the lies that gas is a strategic necessity and that we need new exports to keep the economy going. We're seeing the results—vulnerable communities stranded, ecosystems collapsing and corporations profiting off of the pollution and destruction. If we are serious about climate justice, we need to also remove fossil fuels from politics. Without that, there is no path, legal or moral, to protect cultures, communities or country. It's time to stand with our farmers, with our elders, like Uncle Paul and Uncle Pabai, with the climate movement and with every community on the front line of the crisis. It's time to reform our environmental laws and act on climate right now.

That's why this bill matters. If we are serious about protecting nature, our forests, our farmland, our coasts and our communities, then we cannot keep pretending that climate change is separate to the environment. From the shorelines of South Australia, where my family and I spend our summers swimming with the eagle rays—we return there and see the devastation, the marine graveyards washing up on the beaches—to the low-lying islands of the Torres Strait, where culture is literally being swallowed by the sea, the climate crisis is already reshaping our environment in irreversible ways. And yet our environmental laws are still silent on climate. That is a failure of leadership if ever there were one. This bill would change that. It would force the minister to consider the climate impacts of every single new project. It would stop the biggest polluters—the mega coal and gas corporations, which have no place in a climate-safe future—from ever getting approvals, and it would bring our outdated environmental laws into the 21st century.

So the question for Labor and my colleagues across the bench is this: what kind of legacy do you want to leave? You can keep choosing to do the bidding of Woodside and Santos, rubber-stamping pollution and locking in climate collapse, or you can work with the Greens to fix our broken laws, to protect our environment and to give our kids a fighting chance at a liveable future. This place could be where we turn the tide on climate change. If Labor has the courage to break free from the fossil-fuel lobby and stand with communities instead of corporations, together we can legislate a climate trigger and finally put the environment and the people who depend on it first. Thank you again to my colleague Senator Hanson-Young for bringing this critical bill to the parliament.

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 and to speak against it on the basis that it's an ineffective method of achieving emissions reduction in Australia, it duplicates existing legislation and it ignores the substantive process of environmental law reform that the government's currently undertaking. The goal of that law reform is to improve the approvals processes, reduce Australia's emissions and guide this country through an energy transition—a complicated and difficult process.

The work of reforming the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is underway. The work of the energy transition and emissions reduction is underway, and the size and significance of that task should not be underestimated. Dr Henry, addressing the National Press Club last week, stated what is, in some ways, the obvious: 'Clearly, this is not a small task. There have been three failed attempts in the past 15 years to get this reform done. But reform is essential. And it is time to get it done.' That is what the government is committed to. It is unlikely to be done, however, given the scope of the challenge and the significance of the consequences, through simplistic approaches. It is unlikely to be helped by this private senator's bill.

What are we really talking about here? At the core of it, of course we should consider climate impacts and of course legislation should address the problems of climate change, and it does—including the government's safeguard mechanism. Indeed, Graeme Samuel's review of these laws—I'm referring specifically to recommendation 2—suggested that national environmental standards should require development proposals to 'explicitly consider the likely effectiveness of avoidance or mitigation measures on nationally protected matters under specified climate change scenarios' and 'transparently disclose the full emissions of the development'. That seems sensible. But the process proposed under this bill creates two thresholds. It creates a threshold based on a significant emissions impact that kicks in at 25 kilotonnes across 12 months and a prohibited emissions impact which kicks in at 100 kilotonnes across 12 months. It then imposes penalties, including criminal sanctions, for taking actions in the absence of approvals in certain circumstances. That mechanism, in the way it's been proposed, is what we have a fundamental issue with here because it's unlikely to be effective as a part of environmental law reform in Australia.

Professor Samuel, in his review of the EPBC Act, noted that it's a complex and outdated piece of legislation and it 'does not meet best practice for modern regulation', and one of the reasons it doesn't do so is the level of complexity involved. It's difficult, time consuming and expensive for people to understand their legal rights and obligations. This leads to confusion and inconsistent decision-making, which creates unnecessary regulatory burdens for businesses and restricts access to justice. Professor Samuel said:

The policy areas covered by the EPBC Act are inherently complex. The way the different areas of the Act work together to deliver environmental outcomes is not always clear, and many areas operate in a siloed way.

That, I think, is at the heart of our opposition to this private senator's bill. It is not an attempt to substantially reform Australia's environmental laws; it is a proposal for the addition of a climate trigger and criminal offences into a piece of legislation that is already complex and cumbersome to apply. It appears to have given little thought to how businesses or regulators would actually seek to implement these reforms and enforce compliance other than the penalties proposed.

I come back to Dr Henry's speech at the National Press Club last week. I note that he observed:

Report after report tells the same story. The environment is not being protected. Biodiversity is not being conserved. Nature is in systemic decline.

The government seeks to address this, but the observation made by Dr Henry after that is important to consider when examining the mechanism by which we achieve that goal. Dr Henry said:

We simply cannot afford slow, opaque, duplicative and contested environmental planning decisions based on poor information mired in administrative complexity.

This bill would add to the administrative complexity of an already complex and cumbersome act. It would not make the process of environmental protection in Australia either more effective or easier. That approvals process hurts in perverse ways as well. Approvals and the lack of efficiency around approvals under this legislation also prevent environmentally beneficial projects coming online. Dr Henry observed that the average time for an EPBC assessment and approval of a wind farm or a solar farm blew out from 505 days in 2018 to 831 days in 2021.

For the goals that we're trying to achieve, we need to reform this act to make it easier to use, to make it more efficient and to make the approvals process something that can be negotiated quickly and easily, where we can get decisions on both projects that the economy requires and projects that will help our environmental transition and our transition to clean energy. According to the Clean Energy Investor Group, between 2018 and 2024, of renewables projects in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria that required assessment under the EPBC Act, only 28 were actually approved or rejected. There's a broken system here. As Professor Samuel observed in his review, the current act adds costs to business, often with little benefit to the environment. That, we say, is a problem that would be worsened by this private senator's bill.

The second point I'd really like to address is the duplication of the emissions regulation framework that is contemplated under this legislation. One of the observations that Samuel made in his review was:

While climate change is a significant and increasing threat to Australia's environment, successive Commonwealth Governments have elected to adopt specific mechanisms and laws to implement their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPBC Act should not duplicate the Commonwealth's framework for regulating emissions.

This bill would duplicate the Commonwealth's framework for regulating emissions. In 2023, the safeguard mechanism was reformed by this government to require facilities to reduce their emissions in line with Australia's climate targets. These reforms applied a nearly five per cent annual decline rate to facilities baselines so that they are reduced predictably and gradually over time on a trajectory consistent with achieving Australia's emissions reduction targets—43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The baselines for these new facilities will then decline over time at the same rate as other facilities. That mechanism came into place on 1 July 2023.

There is a real risk with legislation that's proposed in the form that it is currently in before us. You would have different emissions thresholds applying to enliven climate triggers than the safeguard mechanism. I outlined those standards before but, from a practical perspective in terms of ensuring compliance with this legislation to actually get the outcomes we need, if you have pieces of legislation that say two different things, it creates a kind of chaos. It creates a kind of administrative complexity for those people who have to try and comply with that legislation and those people who have to try and enforce that legislation, and this is something we cannot afford in environmental regulation. We need it to be simpler and more effective, not more complicated and potentially inconsistent. It's a recipe for confusion and it undermines our goals of ultimately reducing emissions in the long term, goals that this government has taken a number of steps in the right direction on.

There is a difference in this space between moral outrage and real work, and I commend my colleague Senator Grogan for her observations earlier in this respect. This government has undertaken the most significant emissions reduction measures in Australia's history. The examples include renewable energy targets, the Capacity Investment Scheme, the new vehicle efficiency standard and, very importantly, the safeguard mechanism. Since 2022, more than 90 renewable energy generation projects have come online, and that's enough to power 11 million homes. Australia's 2024 emissions projections show that the policies that have been put in place show Australia on track to reach 42.7 per cent below 2005 emissions levels by 2030. It's just shy of the target of 43 per cent, and the net zero plan remains on track.

I turn now to the government's environmental reforms. The reform of Australia's environmental laws—substantively, in the form of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act at the moment—is an important national priority for the government. The current legislation, as described earlier, simply doesn't work, but this bill doesn't assist it either. What's really very clear, not least of which because it's been an energetic and very public effort, is that the current environment minister is in the process of consulting with a broad range of stakeholders to ensure we get this policy right and we take the community with us. In relation to some of the early outcomes of those consultations, we've already heard that what's important to people is stronger environmental protection and restoration; more efficient and robust project assessments; greater accountability; and transparency in decision-making. Key elements of such reforms will also include the content of national environmental standards, streamlined approval processes, regional planning, more robust offset regimes and monitoring and better data on environmental impacts.

I am hesitant to compliment him too much, but I think the minister really hit the nail on the head when he said it's important to get a broad range of people together with different perspectives on these issues because the truth is we're only going to pass these reforms and solve these challenges by working together. Real reform of this size and significance in this country requires the country to commit, because it comes with not only benefits but also costs.

It's also important that we get this right. The area is complex, and the consequences are severe, as I've said. We need to get these reforms done at the appropriate level of care and rigour to ensure that they can stay in place. This is work that must stand for a long time. It must protect Australia's environment for generations. That was one of the final conclusions of Dr Henry's speech to the National Press Club last week. The consequences of this are significant. If we breach too many of these laws, he said, then humanity ceases to exist, and that's a bleak message. The good news, according to Dr Henry, is that we still have time to get this right. We can't have another failed attempt at reforming these laws. That's why the approach taken by the government is the responsible one. Dr Henry observed that we should choose to do so—that is, tackle the task of reform—

Thank you, Senator Ghosh. The time for this debate has now expired. You will be in continuation.

I move:

That the following address-in-reply be agreed to:

To Her Excellency the Governor-General

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY—

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this sacred and ancient land, and I pay respects to elders past and present. I also want to especially recognise First Nations emerging leaders from across the more than 250 nations of this continent. I look forward to the day when more of you join me in this place. Diversity in our parliament is fundamental to building a stronger and fairer society. I am so proud and genuinely humbled to be able to bring a new, young voice to the Albanese Labor government. I am the first parliamentarian born in this millennium, and I am joining a government which, for the first time in Australian history, has a cabinet made up of more women than men.

In May this year the Australian people overwhelmingly rejected the politics of hate and division which have been on the rise in many countries across the world. Together they gave expression to the core Australian value of a fair go, the touchstone of our Australian labour movement. This fair go underpins every policy this government took to the people and Her Excellency outlined in her opening address to this parliament. Analysts and commentators have told us how influential younger Australians were in this election, and, whilst this is not my first speech, I am honoured to be able to move this motion and take this first opportunity to say to all young Australians we hear you. We hear your demands for a fair go in the face of a world of growing uncertainty, and we will work with you to build a country that is socially, environmentally and economically progressive and successful.

In moving this motion, I want to highlight just some of the critical policies that will make a real difference to my generation and will deliver that fair go in areas of housing, education and climate change. Our policies to combat the housing crisis will make Australia economically fairer. Our policies to improve access to education will make Australia socially fairer. And our policies to tackle climate change will work towards intergenerational climate justice.

Many Australians—but, disproportionately, younger Australians who are just starting out—feel the real strain of cost-of-living increases. The previous Albanese government worked hard to ease this pressure, and in this term our actions on the cost of living will make a real difference to many Australians.

I want to speak about the cost-of-living monster that everyone my age talks about—housing. It's what keeps us up at night. When will I be able to move out of my parents' home? Where can I find a rental property I can actually afford? How far away from work will I have to live? And then, crucially, if we want to climb that property ladder, how on earth will we be able to save up enough for a deposit on a home? The great Australian dream has always been synonymous with buying your own home, but, if you don't come from a rich family, that now feels well out of reach. That is unfair and we are going to change it.

We will make lower deposits accessible to all first home buyers. You will be able to buy your first home with just a five per cent deposit, and the government will stand as guarantor so you don't need to pay expensive lenders mortgage insurance. There will be no income caps on this scheme and no maximum number of guarantees. This will be a universal scheme. Saving a 20 per cent deposit to get into homeownership whilst paying rent is an unscalable mountain for most of us. The median home price in Australia today is $820,000. Five per cent of that is $41,000. The last time $41,000 covered the 20 per cent deposit for a median home was in 2002. I wasn't even born in 2002. The day this policy was announced, before the election, my partner and I looked at each other and said: 'We might have a chance now.' And for those on lower incomes we will be implementing our Help to Buy scheme, where the government will provide up to 40 per cent equity in a new home, so 40,000 Australian families can pay a lower mortgage.

We are tackling housing supply too, with a target of building 1.2 million new homes in the next five years. As part of that target, we will put $10 billion into building 100,000 homes reserved just for first home buyers. We're partnering with state and territory governments to accelerate land release and planning approvals for these homes. My home state of South Australia is already running a similar program and we know it's working. It has been only a dream for many of my generation to own their own home. Now it can become a reality once again.

If we want to create a fair and equitable future for Australia, we need to be investing in young people today. Many of my colleagues in this chamber have benefited from policies introduced by past Labor governments. During your lives, you've had the benefit of tertiary education that was free or had no upfront fees; you've been able to see a doctor for free, through the mighty Medicare; and soon some of you will be reaping the benefits of the revolutionary superannuation guarantee scheme as well. These policies weren't just financial assistance. They unlocked real opportunities for generations of Australians. They placed trust in the potential of every Australian. They declared that this country believes in a fair go. But the benefits of some of these policies have been gradually eroded by those who did not share that same vision of equity. This government is working to fix that.

Young Australians tell us that they are now struggling to take up vocational and educational opportunities because of the rising cost of living. We hear you, and we want to relieve the pressure. We can't let the story of tertiary education be one of crippling debt. So the government's first bill in this term will slash 20 per cent from HECS debts. We are declaring that the investment young people make in their education matters for the collective future of us all.

Free TAFE is part of this declaration. Around 40 per cent of the jobs created in the next decade will need a VET qualification. Now you can get many qualifications for free. Our prospective new tradies must not be scared off by the cost of their training. These workers build our hard infrastructure. They build the new houses we so badly need. Apprentices in the home-building trades now receive $10,000 of financial assistance while training, and we are increasing the living-away-from-home allowance so it's easy to take up an apprenticeship away from home. This is so important for young people from the regions, like me. To get an apprenticeship you might need to move away from home, but the wages apprentices earn often don't pay the bills. These policies will make that move so much easier.

We are also supporting students who will work in our critical social infrastructure jobs. Our nurses, midwives, teachers and social workers are the people we trust to look after our children and care for us when we need it most, but these students are required to do their unpaid placement to qualify, and many simply can't afford it. Now those nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work students who need support while doing their placements will be able to get weekly financial assistance so they can get their qualifications and pay their rent at the same time.

Truly fair access to education actually starts way earlier. It starts with great care and early learning. Our government will guarantee three full days of child care each week. This creates flexible support for families while helping children build strong foundations in learning and social development. We will fully and fairly fund public schools. No parent should feel the pressure to live in the right area just to secure a good start for their child. I know people who are paying rent they really can't afford to get into a particular school zone. We want to take that pressure off by raising the bar for all of our public schools. A strong, inclusive public education system leads to better opportunities throughout life. It gives young people more career choices. When we invest in our schools across the board, it won't matter who you are or where you live—everyone will have the chance to succeed. We are laying the groundwork so that your life chances are not determined by postcode, income or circumstance but by potential and passion.

And now for a topic that will define the future of my generation: climate change. We lost a decade of action when climate-change deniers dominated this place, and this global emergency will not wait. We are seeing the devastation caused by the increase in catastrophic weather events across the country which are taking lives and causing billions of dollars in damage. We are seeing the damage from warmer seas to our precious coral reefs. Back home in Yankalilla, where I grew up, warmer oceans have caused an algal bloom which is killing sea life in areas that up until now have been virtually pristine.

The vast majority of young Australians do not talk about climate sceptics versus climate believers. To us, climate change is not a matter of faith or belief; it is purely a matter of hard fact, and this government is determined to do everything we can to meet our goals of the Paris Agreement, including holding the increase in average temperatures to well below two degrees Celsius of warming. This government's net zero plan is delivering on the legislated target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

A large part of our path to net zero is renewables, and we are determined to reach 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, so we're investing in renewables in ways that also provide real economic benefits and cost-of-living relief. Australians are enthusiastically moving to renewables. We already have more than four million rooftop solar installations across Australia. One in three Australian households now have solar panels on their property. This level of uptake has been aided by the Small-scale Renewable Energy scheme, which cuts the upfront cost of buying solar panels that significantly reduce power bills. As it stands, only one in 40 households has a battery which allows them to store that power and use it when the sun isn't shining. Our Cheaper Home Batteries Program will mean more homes have batteries to store that power, and more homes will have reduced costs for their everyday electricity. By dropping the cost of a typical battery installation by 30 per cent, we expect to have one million new batteries in Australian homes by 2030. If a household installs a new program with both solar panels and a battery, they could save up to 90 per cent off a typical family electricity bill. We are all currently paying the price for an energy system built on unreliable, ageing energy infrastructure and a decade of inaction.

As well as increasing renewables home by home, we are also working on big-scale generation projects. The Capacity Investment Scheme is right now seeking tenders so we can make sure that enough renewable electricity will be introduced to the grid in time to meet demand between now and 2030.

The global climate crisis was caused by previous generations. It will be up to my generation and the ones that come after me to keep fighting for this planet with determined optimism. We will build on the groundwork done by governments of today to build a better environment for tomorrow. We know we can meet this challenge. The state that I represent, South Australia, is a global leader in energy transition. In the last 16 years, our state lifted its net electricity production from one per cent renewables to more than 74 per cent. An optimistic determination for a better and fairer future underpins the vision of the Albanese government for the term ahead.

I want to thank Her Excellency for detailing the agenda in her address to the parliament. I will leave it to my many more-experienced colleagues to speak about the great depth and breadth of this government's policies, which I have only barely touched on. In closing, I say this to my fellow young Australians: we hear you and we will act on your demands for a better future. The legislation we will pass in this parliament won't just be laws and regulations; they will be practical, people focused solutions for our future.

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to respond to the Governor-General's address at a time when this parliament opens under the weight of deeply troubling revelations. As we turn our minds to the priorities of a new term, we cannot look past the urgent failures exposed in our childcare system, failures that enabled multiple people now accused of crimes against children to work across childcare centres, undetected, for years, a failure to protect our children. Over recent weeks, Australians have been confronted with horrifying allegations of child sexual abuse in Victorian childcare centres, resulting in the accused being charged with more than 70 offences relating to eight alleged victims aged between five months and two years of age. In my own state of New South Wales, two childcare workers have been charged with assaulting a 17-month-old boy in their care. In Queensland, a 21-year-old man has been charged with one count of indecent treatment of a four-year-old child at a Brisbane childcare centre. This is a systemic failure of child protection, and one we must not turn away from. It deserves not just our outrage but our action.

To the victims and their families, no words will ever be enough to account for what has transpired here. You deserve more than words; you deserve action—action that ensures that no child and no family is ever failed in this way again. We as a parliament are compelled to ask: how can this happen in a system overseen by both state and federal regulators with multiple layers of supposed safeguards? How could a person alleged to have committed such acts be allowed to work across so many childcare centres? Where were the flags, the checks and the safeguards? What must now be done to ensure that this can never happen again?

I want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, for her clear and unequivocal commitment to putting the safety of children above politics and partisanship. As she said at the National Press Club, children's safety must come first. That commitment was reinforced in a letter to the Prime Minister offering the opposition's full cooperation in developing and assessing any legislative changes the government may bring forward. Our shadow education team, led by Senator Jonathon Duniam, and Zoe McKenzie in the other place, are ready to work with the government to ensure our child protection systems are as strong, transparent and accountable as they must be to prevent such things ever happening again. I commend Senator Duniam and Zoe McKenzie for their swift and measured response to these deeply disturbing revelations, acknowledging the scale of trauma involved and calling for an urgent review of our national safeguards. Their leadership has been clear-eyed and focused on solutions. I also wish to acknowledge Senator Leah Blyth, one of my newest colleagues in this place and an already passionate voice for building safer and more resilient communities. In her new role as shadow assistant minister for stronger families and stronger communities, she brings a sharp focus to the systems that are meant to protect our most vulnerable and a deep commitment to ensuring that those systems are worthy of the trust placed in them by Australian families.

One of the most urgent questions before us is whether our current reliance on state based working-with-children checks is truly fit for purpose. These checks must be more than a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise. They cannot be treated as a shield that in practice allows perpetrators to move undetected between centres and jurisdictions. There is scope for government to consider whether these checks should form part of a nationally consistent framework, one that incorporates real-time alerts, mandatory prevention training and seamless interjurisdictional data sharing. While the regulatory responsibility of working-with-children checks rests primarily with states and territories, the Commonwealth is uniquely placed to lead national coordination and drive the changes needed to make early learning centres genuinely safer. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse gave us a clear road map. It is time that we acted upon it. The government should also give serious consideration to the recommendations of the Australian Childhood Foundation, which has called for mandatory child abuse prevention education to be embedded in the working-with-children check itself.

But child safety is not just about vetting workers. It is also about how our systems are structured and whether they are capable of identifying risks, responding to red flags and prioritising the safety of children above all else. This moment demands a broader examination of how the current childcare model is functioning. The system as it stands channels government subsidies almost exclusively towards formal, centre based care, a model that has grown rapidly but not always with sufficient oversight. An investigation by the ABC earlier this month revealed that the childcare worker now charged with serious offences was employed by one of Victoria's largest providers despite previous incidents being reported. These were missed opportunities for intervention at an extraordinary cost to these children and to their families. This is not about casting blame on a provider. Many for-profit and not-for-profit providers do outstanding work. But it is a reminder that rapid growth, fragmented oversight and inconsistent enforcement can create gaps in which serious risks go unnoticed. It is the responsibility of state and federal governments to ensure that no provider, regardless of their structure, is able to operate without meeting the highest standards of safety and accountability.

In light of recent events, a growing movement of Australian parents is calling for meaningful reform. One such group, ForParentsAU, has launched a petition now signed by more than 9,000 Australians urging the government to expand the childcare subsidy to cover a broader range of childcare options, including nannies, au pairs and co-working spaces that support parents and even grandparents. That's because the current system forces families to fit the model rather than building a model that fits the reality of families. At the heart of this is a truth that we don't acknowledge often enough—that much of our economy is sustained by unpaid care labour, most often by women and most often invisible to policy. It's grandparents who adjust their lives to care for their grandchildren, and it's parents who forgo work because the only available child care is so unaffordable or unsuitable. It's the sandwich generation, who juggle their lives to care not only for their own children but also for their ageing parents. These are contributions that our country relies on, but we rarely value them as we should.

Expanding the subsidy in the way these families are calling for would not only deliver flexibility; it would begin to recognise in a tangible way the value of informal care and the unpaid labour that holds up our economy and our communities. This is not about tearing down formal childcare centres. This is about recognising that families deserve choices; that children deserve care arrangements that are safe, trusted and suited to their individual needs; and that policy should reflect the diversity of modern Australian households. This is a reform that deserves serious and urgent consideration by this government.

The evidence is clear. This is not just a call from advocacy groups. This reflects the real preferences of working parents and families, who want change. Polling by YouGov commissioned by the Centre for Independent Studies found that two-thirds of working mothers would accept a lower childcare subsidy if it meant they could use it for informal care from a relative or perhaps a trusted nanny. Nearly half said childcare costs affect how many hours they are able to work. Sixty per cent listed the warmth of caregiving among their top priorities, ranking well above early learning programs or staff credentials. It is worth asking whether our current policy settings reflect what parents truly value and what our children actually need.

As it stands, the childcare subsidy is one size fits all, but Australian families are not. It is time we trusted parents to decide what is best for their children. It is time to recognise that child care, in all its forms, plays a vital role in supporting workforce participation, especially for women. But for too many families the current system is not just expensive but rigid. A more flexible approach to childcare funding wouldn't undermine workforce participation; it would empower women. Women returning to work don't all follow the same path, and children don't all thrive in the same settings. We need a model that allows parents to choose the care that suits their working hours, their cultural context and the individual needs of their family and their child.

As we discuss safety for children in child care, we cannot forget the safety of children at home. Today the ABC reported that homelessness rates, particularly for women and girls, have worsened under the Albanese government's first term due to service underfunding and the lack of affordable housing. The issue has reached its worst levels in living memory, Homelessness Australia said, with analysis of data from homelessness services across the country showing that women and girls fleeing domestic violence are the most affected. The number of people accessing these services each month has increased by 10 per cent since Labor was elected in May 2022. But for women and girls, the data shows that that increase has been 14 per cent. A government that says it stands with women must deliver more than words. It must deliver homes—safe, secure, affordable housing. But for many women the security of safety and a roof over their head is the first act of child protection.

These issues—child safety, childcare choice and housing security—are not peripheral. They go to the heart of what kind of society we are and what kind of future we are building for our children. As the shadow assistant minister for child protection, I know we cannot legislate away evil, but we can and must build robust systems that are worthy of the trust that parents place in them every single day. The government must move swiftly and decisively, but it must also move wisely, with eyes wide open to the lived experiences of Australian families. The opposition stands ready to work constructively on these reforms, but we will not hesitate to speak when the government falls short or when it ignores the voices of parents crying out for change for their children.

I speak in reply to the Governor-General's address to parliament. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the fabulous kids in the gallery here today as well. I will begin my reply on a topic that is of real importance to literally millions of Australians, and that is the NDIS. While senators and MPs were off having a little break post election, the NDIA decided on its annual price guide changes. Back on 1 July, the agency's pricing arrangements and price limits came into effect, and what a treat they had in store for NDIS participants and allied health providers! In case you hadn't heard, the agency has reduced, without consultation, the amount that physiotherapists, occupational therapists, support coordinators and many other allied health services and supports can charge for their essential services. In a cost-of-living crisis, this decision effectively reduces the amount that allied health and disability support providers are being paid. Yes, you heard that right. In a cost-of-living crisis, the agency that runs the NDIS, under this Labor government, has reduced the amount of money paid to allied health services and disability providers, and this puts disabled people further at risk.

I have heard from hundreds of NDIS participants and professionals, who have detailed the very dire impacts of the NDIA's pricing decisions. One person in WA shared: 'Almost all of my colleagues have reported unpaid work and unpaid overtime in trying to ensure a client is supported. The hardest thing is telling clients in need that we cannot see and we cannot help them—not because we don't want to but because we are part of a system that does not value us or our work. People with disabilities are being abandoned.' Another, who worked in the disability sector throughout their career, emailed me to say: 'I am disappointed. I am burnt out, devalued and now looking at financial stress due to the actions of the NDIS with the support of this Labor government.' From where I am sitting, it is clear that the NDIA failed to adequately consult providers and participants, and they have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how their decisions have harmful, immediate impacts for disabled people.

Let's talk about some of those impacts. Whether the NDIA like it or not, the reality is that, for many disabled people, we need to access therapies outside of a doctor's office. Research and our lived experience show that accessing therapies at home, at school and at our workplaces has much greater outcomes for our wellbeing. To be frank, it is pretty difficult to get access to an OT to assess what your needs are for supporting you to pack your kids' lunches in your own kitchen or what assistance you might need to have a shower when the OT is not able to travel to your home.

For those outside the major cities, some people simply don't have the means or adequate support to travel into the city or the next town to have the therapy. Many regional and remote communities don't have local providers who can meet all the needs of those communities. However, these latest cuts mean that a physiotherapist who travels from Perth to regional WA to see participants once per week is no longer paid enough to provide that support. Rural, regional and remote loadings have been removed, and travel time has been cut to a maximum of 30 minutes. That is, I guess, in the agency's view, too bad for WA participants in beautiful Gingin, which—and this is just their reality—is over an hour from Perth by car. Their physiotherapist will no longer be able to provide weekly outreach services unless they do the travel for free, which nobody should be required to do in a cost-of-living crisis.

Telehealth to get physiotherapy isn't possible, and now we are hearing it is practically impossible, thanks to the NDIA, for a physio to travel from the city to your place. The outcome? No access to physio. Therapies like physio, occupational therapy, podiatry and the like are critical for disabled people's daily functioning. But here we are, living in a world where the NDIS is no longer willing to put out a pricing agreement that enables access to this support locally. So now either disabled people will go without those supports altogether or the NDIS will have to increase participant plans to cover more transport costs and support worker hours to make those appointments possible. Devastatingly, it will cost the agency more when all of this comes out in the wash. The NDIA says it is committed to improving services for people in the bush but, in reality, the agency is putting up more and more barriers for participants to access support.

I've heard from plan managers and support coordinators that many participants are having to find new support coordinators and plan managers because some smaller providers are closing as they can no longer absorb these increasing costs. These professionals—and they are professionals—haven't seen a pay increase in seven years. Again, let me underline that: in seven years there has not been an increase to the price that the NDIA is willing to pay these professionals. Think about how much the cost of living has gone up in that time, and yet they are having to absorb increasing costs and having to perform more and more hidden administrative functions. They are having to do these administration processes in the context of the IT system, known as PACE, and anyone out there familiar with this system knows the problems with that particular program.

In a sector that is already under stress, we are very likely to see many highly qualified and compassionate people leave because they simply can't make ends meet as the NDIS changes so many of the goalposts and expectations over and over. We've already seen a report of one provider who has announced their closure in August directly as a result of these pricing arrangements. This will mean that more than 100 NDIS participants will no longer have access to speech pathology services.

The NDIS minister needs to demand that the NDIA review its pricing arrangements immediately. Then we must have a full and proper review of the pricing arrangements process to ensure they are independent, transparent and fair. This Labor government has gutted the NDIS in so many ways since it first got elected in 2022, and every single time disabled people and community are ultimately the ones who suffer. We must not forget all of this is happening because of the cuts to the NDIS that were underpinned by agreements and financial sustainability frameworks that the Senate was first told didn't exist; we were then told that they did exist but that we couldn't see them. So, again, in conclusion, I call for the government to release the financial sustainability framework, which the Senate has been demanding.

Now, I was only able to make that observation because of my re-election to this place. I want to conclude by thanking the many people who helped build our massive campaign across WA. Together we had tens of thousands of conversations, from Esperance to Broome. Firstly, I'd like to thank our lower house candidates. There were our metro candidates Sophie Greer, Clint Uink, Amy Warne, Kitty Hemsley and Eric Hayward. Our outer metro candidates were Matthew Count, Scott McCarthy, Jody Freeman, Abbey Bishop, Adam Razak, Jordan Cahill, Tamica Matson and Nicholas D'Alonzo. Our regional and rural candidates were Brendan Sturcke, Georgia Beardman and Giz Watson. Additionally, I extend my thanks to the WA Senate ticket candidates and acknowledge the hard work undertaken by the Greens WA staff and volunteer team, who worked tirelessly to achieve such an amazing result. To my incredible staff team: you are intelligent, creative and compassionate. Thank you for your dedication to working every day so that we can best represent our community in this place. We are so committed to supporting people when they need it, and I am so grateful for the opportunity to work, learn and shake things up together.

Some of my highlights of this campaign were conversations with people who had chosen to join their local Greens team at a polling place, on a doorknock or at a community stall event, and I'd like to thank everyone who took the time, perhaps for the first time, to volunteer with the Greens this election. Together, we heard from the community that they are feeling let down by the major parties. Election campaigns take their toll. It would have been easy for cynicism to overcome hope, but our team of volunteers led a strong, joyful and hopeful election campaign that was focused on building links between different communities to make us all more powerful and capable of achieving what we want to see.

The cost-of-living crisis and the climate crisis are creating some of the most trying times for our community. People in WA and across the country are doing their best in the face of these challenging circumstances. I believe that politics, including in this place, must be a force that changes the world for the better. We must take action every day, driven by the principle that life can and must be better for everyone in our community. I know that achieving this will take all of us. No senator or MP can single-handedly change the world for the better. It is here in the parliament, and it's out there on the streets, going door to door. It's protest action. It's success built together. It takes a movement of people working together to achieve change, and, while doing so, push back against the corporate interests that drive the decisions of the major parties and which, by extension, loom over our parliament, casting a shadow.

Our priority in this place must be to act on what the community has sent us here to do: dental and mental health into Medicare and strong action on the climate crisis and a transition to clean energy, and for them to be able to see a GP for free and not to rack up tens of thousands of dollars in student debt. Labor has one of the biggest majorities in history in the lower house. The Australian Greens have the balance of power in the Senate. Now is the time to start the bold and progressive reform that will actually help our community. We can and we must.

This is not my first speech. The May 2025 election was a resounding endorsement of this Labor government's overwhelmingly positive agenda put forward to the Australian people, and conversely it was an emphatic rejection of the poverty of ideas and relentless negativity peddled by the so-called alternative government. Our principal offering—I would say it was the centrepiece of that offering—to the Australian people in this historic election was around Medicare. I sit on this side of the house because of Medicare. Medicare is a proud Labor legacy. It was introduced in 1984, which, incidentally, is the same year that I immigrated to Australia as a child. Is there a coincidence? Maybe. I remember as a child watching Bob Hawke on TV. I grew up to become a doctor, and, before I entered parliament in 2022 in the other place, I served for 26 years in our public hospital system right around the country. I have worked in regional communities and I have worked in big city hospitals—those hospitals that suck patients up from everywhere. If it takes a village to raise a child, then it takes a city to treat a patient. That's what these places are like. And underpinning all of that is Medicare.

But, over the 26 years I worked, I saw increasingly worse outcomes in patients. I saw far too many patients with severe chronic diseases, like diabetes that led to blindness, like kidney disease and serial amputations. I saw patients with advanced heart failure who were literally drowning on dry land. I treated patients with severe mental health illnesses and suicidality in young people who had no business being in a major hospital. I also managed drug and alcohol dependency, perhaps the most stigmatised part of mental health, and one that we need to shine a light on in this parliament and destigmatise. I dealt with homelessness every single day. I kept patients in hospital just so that they could have a feed, a wash and a bed, and so that they didn't feel threatened on the streets.

There wasn't a week that went by in that nearly 30-year career when I didn't make a cancer diagnosis. How easy do you think it is to tell a woman my age and who has children my children's age that the pain in her hip is actually due to a cancer deposit and I don't know where the primary is? I saw a Jewish Orthodox patient and I was told, 'Michelle, she's got cancer in her skull and we don't know where it's come from.' I went to the bedside and I examined her. I exposed her breasts, and I could see the lump on her breast. I could see the lump. Why is it that this even happened? You don't think gender bias is real in the health system? You can't tell me that when patients present with advanced cancer they haven't seen a healthcare professional sometime in the last five years, two years, one year. What was going on? There are blind spots in our health system. I was literally the ambulance at the bottom of that cliff. In this place we, this Labor government, become the menders of the fence at that top of the cliff, and the name of that fence—say it with feeling—is Medicare.

This is why we are strengthening Medicare, committing $8½ billion to finally deliver what Australians want, which is to see a bulk-billed doctor again. That's what it's about. We believe that nine out of 10 GP visits in the next five years will be bulk-billed. Now, there are detractors among us who say it's never going to happen. In fact, there was a report yesterday in one of the broadsheets that said only three in four GPs are going to bulk bill, meaning one in four aren't. Well, I say to those one in four who aren't that three in four is pretty good. I'll take that. I guarantee you your patients will vote with their feet. Australians are not stupid. They get it. There are plenty of great doctors in this country. Do your homework. I say to those clinics who are considering this: do your math. The incentive is huge.

It restores what the AMA actually asked for when the coalition, a decade ago, froze rebates in general practice, and this is why we now have seen what has been described as a freefall in bulk-billing. I don't use that language casually. That language was actually put by the president of the college of GPs. She said in 2022, when we came to power, that bulk-billing was in freefall. That's why we pulled an emergency handbrake. We tripled the bulk-billing incentive. I can see today the gallery is full of the people who this incentive was designed to help—pensioners, concession card holders and children under the age of 16. What did we find? We found an uplift in bulk-billing. It's effectively restored bulk-billing to this group. Now nine out of 10, or 11 million, Australians in that category are receiving bulk-billed care. That happened because of one well-designed incentive. Now imagine us rolling that out for every single Australian.

I challenge anyone who tells me that this is not going to work. I know for a fact that when I visited a GP practice—one of the few GP practices in Warrnambool in western Victoria—they were genuinely surprised about this. They didn't really know the detail, but it means that their consults will go from being about $40, rebated, to $80, rebated. That means that, across the thousands and thousands of patients they see, they're going to get more money and they can then employ more doctors or nurses and so on. It's a game changer. It's also not lost on me that Warrnambool is in the seat of Wannon, an electorate which is held by a Liberal member. Those communities need Labor governments.

A year on from the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, we saw a rise in bulk-billing of two per cent. It doesn't sound like much. It translates to around 100,000 additional bulk-billed visits per week. But here's the thing: the national average was two per cent one year on, but the effect in regional communities was way outsized. For example, in regional Tasmania the rate went up 5.7 per cent; in regional Queensland it was four per cent; and in parts of regional Victoria, principally Bendigo, bulk-billing went up eight per cent. I pay tribute to the member for Bendigo, Lisa Chesters, who did a lot of work promoting this policy.

What if you are too unwell for your GP but you're not unwell enough for an emergency department? Where do you go? We have recognised that we need a halfway house for people with non-life-threatening injuries to attend. They may have a sprain or sporting injuries, are perhaps running a fever, have gastro or a cough and cold. Maybe the child's got a rash. Where do you go? You don't want to spend half a day in an emergency department, right? That's why we rolled out 50 urgent care clinics when we first came to power, but then we decided we'd go further and roll out 87. In fact, we overdelivered. These are open from early till late, they are walk-in—you do not need an appointment—and all you need is your Medicare card. It's hard to believe, but you do not need your credit card. Put it away.

Interestingly, here we are—two years on, we have hit a new milestone. One and a half million Australians have used these clinics. They have been a roaring success. A third of patients who attend these clinics are, in fact, children aged less than 15. Imagine that. We have had no problem recruiting GPs. They're local GPs, and they have flocked to this clinic model. But we're not stopping there. We are going to be rolling out another 50, taking this up to 137. It means that nine in 10 Australians—can you imagine that, in this huge continent land of ours?—will be within a 20-minute drive of an urgent care clinic. This is a game changer. Victoria will get 12 urgent care clinics, including one in my former seat of Higgins, and, to those of you who say it's too wealthy an electorate, it actually has the lowest rate of bulk-billing in Victoria. It will be going into east Stonnington, which is now in the seat of Chisholm. It is a new element in our repertoire—I welcome it—somewhere in between primary care, which is still the backbone of the healthcare system, and hospital care. We also know that it saves money.

You can't be serious about strengthening Medicare without addressing women's health. Women make up over half the population, right? But our problems have been shrouded in stigma and in secrecy for too long. I don't think that when I went through med school we ever talked about periods, pelvic pain, endometriosis, menopause or contraception. It was really something seen as being in the too-hard basket and that we will have specialists deal with. The problems have come home to roost. Women consume 60 per cent of all health services, but they face a range of barriers, from cost to institutional bias. It is baked into the walls of our hospitals and our health system. This Labor government, which is a female-dominant government, is levelling the playing field. We committed nearly $1 billion to women's health in the last election.

I want to focus on a few key areas. One is contraception. Around two-thirds of all Australian women of childbearing age use contraception. Traditionally this has been the oral contraceptive pill—that is what has been around for decades, since the sixties—and condoms. But we listed for the first time in 30 years—can you believe it took 30 years for this to happen?—new oral contraceptives on the PBS, bringing their costs down to currently $31, but from 1 January next year all general scripts will go down to $25, saving Australians more money.

But here's the thing. The oral contraceptive is old tech. There are newer contraceptive devices around now—IUDs and birth-control implants, like the Implanon. These are called LARCs—long-acting reversible contraception. They have a much, much lower failure rate. In a perfect setting, the oral contraceptive will be 99 per cent effective. That's pretty good. But we don't live in a perfect world. In the real world, it's about 91 per cent. Why? Because it is user dependent, which means that it's prone to error. People forget. Things happen. You might be on meds that interact with the oral contraceptive. You might not absorb it if you have diarrhoea or something like that. So I would urge Australians to look seriously at and have conversations with their GPs about the LARCs, the long-acting reversible contraceptives. We have put these on the PBS. Now Australian women can go and have that discussion and save approximately $400, or maybe more, in out-of-pocket costs. It's a game changer.

In Australia, only one in 10 women use LARCs, whereas in Sweden it is one in three. Get this: the less effective use of contraception, meaning our overreliance on the pill, has led to a high unintended pregnancy rate in Australia. It is estimated to be around 40 per cent, and it's much higher in rural areas. What are the consequences of that? When you have an unintended pregnancy, it leads to a few things. It's stressful. If you want to have a termination, it is medical or surgical. We all know the problems with accessing surgical abortions in this country. It's really, really hard. So why have this problem in the first place? Please, women of Australia, go and have this conversation with your GPs.

We do know that there are barriers to care and that many GPs do not know how to insert these devices. We are working on that, with $25 million going towards centres of excellence around the country to train up our workforce—not just GPs but nurse practitioners. Again, we have untethered them from GPs so that they can work to full scope of practice. That's what this means. It means women providing care to women anywhere in the country. It is the most highly effective care, and it has taken a Labor government to deliver that.

I could keep going, because I love this stuff, but I might need to leave this for another day. I was going to talk about menopause. I will park that for another day. I was going to talk about endometriosis, but time is short. I am just so proud to be part of a government that has pulled back the veil on some of the problems in health that have been in the too-hard basket. We understand that this is going to be a long road of reform. But Labor created Medicare. Labor will always defend Medicare.

Congratulations, Deputy President Brockman, on your election. I congratulate all returning senators who have been re-elected by their constituents. It is good that we can acknowledge the skills and talents of other senators. Senator Ananda-Rajah has just given us a very good example of someone who brings great expertise into the Senate and is able to speak in detail on matters of great importance to the Australian people. I know that the senator will give great service to the people of Victoria, as I'm sure we all endeavour to in our roles here in this parliament.

It is a great tradition that the Governor-General is able to give an explanation of what the government is seeking to achieve over the next three years. It is an opportunity for us now to consider what exactly has been alleged or committed or promised, and that of course is an important part of our democracy.

It is no great surprise that the Liberal-National coalition had a very disappointing and regrettable election result, so this has been a period of perhaps humiliation and embarrassment, and ultimately reflection. It has certainly been character building! I guess what I would say at the outset is it's clear to me that we have to do a better job of being constructive. We have to be constructive, and we need to work with other members and senators to give the Australian people better value—better value for the taxpayers. But it's also critical that we understand our constitutional role as the opposition. We must hold the government to account, not because we want to be mean or nasty but because that is our duty in this Westminster system that we have inherited from Britain. The opposition does perform a critical role working with other Independents and minor parties, particularly here in this Senate, to ensure that the government's promises are held up to the light, that there is scrutiny on the vast expenditure of public funds, that programs are administered competently and professionally and that the Australian people can look at us and say, 'Yes, the parliament is functioning, because the government is doing its job and the opposition is being constructive where it can while ensuring that, where there are failings in public administration, those are properly investigated and examined.' That is our job. So that is what we propose to do over these next three years.

In the Governor-General's address, there was an introductory mention of the economic settings, which, according to the government, are very good. I would say to you, Deputy President, that the economy isn't so flash, and, in fact, you can dress it up in any address you want, but the fundamentals are not good. We have very anaemic growth. We've had stubbornly high inflation. The private economy is shrinking, perhaps dying. Productivity is in the toilet. Now, after having put the country through three years of its economic management, which I would say is more about serving the vested interests that are close to the government rather than about serving the Australian people, the government says to us, 'Well, we need to raise taxes on superannuation and on personal income in order to pay for our decade of deficits that are now projected.' The Treasurer wants to talk about his tax reform record. After the election, the Treasurer gave an address to the Press Club where he talked about the government's fantastic tax reform efforts so far. They've done a great job! They would be the only government in living memory to have reintroduced a tax bracket and brought bracket creep back into the Australian tax system.

The Australian people pay the price of bracket creep. That is their money being stolen by the government because of inflation, and that is providing a huge base for this Treasurer's budget. He reintroduced a tax bracket which was abolished in the 46th Parliament. That's his tax reform record. What's his tax reform agenda for this parliament? Well, it is a tax on unrealised gains. It is unprecedented in Australian history that there would be a tax like this. If you have a paper gain, you pay the tax, even though you haven't sold the stock or realised that investment. The next year you might lose, but you won't get a refund. This is a crazy idea that will, in the long run, destroy one of the government's favourite things, which is compulsory superannuation. So far the tax reform record, I would say, is a big negative.

The question is: what will the government actually do on this productivity front? We are open for business. We are open to suggestions. But it's very important that we remind the Australian people that the record so far, from their first term, was 5,000 new regulations—5,000 new pieces of red tape; 400 bills through this parliament. Now they say they are zealots for cutting red tape. They want to see productivity. Well, we've seen negative productivity growth over the last year. One of the reasons for that is because the private economy is dying. The market in this country is being subsumed by the government.

We see today that half of the Australian population is now relying on the government for its dominant source of income. We are becoming an unrecognisable country, where you see the non-market sector, which is subsidised by the government, eat the market. That's where we are. It might be very popular in the short term, but in the long term the chickens will come home to roost because, ultimately, this will all be paid for through higher taxes. We're looking at 10 years of massive deficits and we're looking at productivity in the toilet. We're looking at, potentially, higher and higher wage claims, which are not linked to output. So this all ends in tears.

If the government is serious about productivity, it will be prepared to be honest with the Australian people and say that there are certain things that are being undertaken by the government today which cannot be afforded. We have to be honest about the limitations of governments because the government has no money of its own. All the money that is expended by governments is taxpayers' funds. The reason that Mr Chalmers is lodging a new tax on unrealised gains, on money which doesn't even exist—there has never been a tax in Australian history on money which doesn't exist. The reason we're having this ridiculous debate is that the government has run out of taxpayer funds. That's why it needs to pursue new revenue streams. It may be true that most Australians have nowhere near $3 million in their super account. That is true. Over the long run many will, but that is not the point. The point is that once you insert a crazy precedent like taxing money which isn't real, then that will be applied to other parts of the economy. We're getting towards a position in which Australia is becoming unrecognisable.

One of the major components of the Governor-General's speech dealt with housing. Housing is, of course, one of the key issues, particularly for younger Australians who feel that the deck is stacked against them. In the last parliament the government built, on average, 170,000 houses a year, which was down from almost 200,000 houses, on average, under the last coalition government. The government have a target to build 1.2 million new houses. That has failed alongside its failure to build more houses. What has it built? The government has built bureaucracies and not houses. They have built bureaucracies in Canberra with billions of dollars invested in them, which doesn't build houses. The Housing Australia Future Fund has $10 billion. It's acquired 300 houses and it has built 17 houses. It's a great return, I would say in a sarcastic fashion. For $10 billion, 17 houses and buying 300 is pretty bad. I mean, who could imagine that the government would be competing with Australians to buy houses, thereby making the supply problem worse? This will be a central issue for the next three years.

In her address, the Governor-General mentioned the Help to Buy scheme put in place by the government in the last parliament. This is a scheme in which the government gives up on the idea of individual ownership of houses and owns 40 per cent of your house. You'll be sitting around at Christmas dinner with mum and dad and the kids, and Mr Albanese and Dr Chalmers. It's not the Australian dream.

Their other scheme, build to rent, gives a tax cut to foreign fund managers, so they can own houses for 15 years—houses that Australians will never own. The government is prioritising socialisation of housing alongside institutional ownership of housing. Foreign fund managers, foreign governments and their sovereign wealth funds, and superannuation funds—these are the people and the institutions that the government thinks should own Australian houses. It's a pretty sick perversion of the Australian dream.

Perhaps the key charge against the government is on competence. During the election campaign Mr Albanese announced two more housing policies. There's a policy to build 100,000 houses. A government that couldn't build more than 17 houses in three years with $10 billion now wants to build 100,000 houses. It also wants to insure all mortgages with lenders mortgage insurance issued by the Canberra insurance company—'Acme insurance' maybe! And this insurance company is not going to be subject to any means testing; Clive Palmer's children could use the Labor Party's mortgage insurance scheme.

This is the kind of country we're becoming, where the government is now so large and doing so many things it doesn't need to do and charging taxpayers for them. These are not points that I enjoy making, other than to highlight that their record on housing has been an embarrassment. The Housing Australia Future Fund would probably be the greatest failure of public policy in my lifetime. Who could imagine that you could have a $10 billion fund that would build 17 houses in the ACT and acquire 300 houses, thereby making the housing problem worse? These are issues that will be of great public interest over the next three years.

I look forward to engaging in a constructive way which holds the government to account, even if it makes them squirm from time to time. That is a key role of this Senate. I look forward to working with the crossbench. They have an even more important role to play as we undertake our constitutional obligations. I would say to my own party and to the coalition that we need to do a better job to ensure that we look after all Australians. Australia is a diverse and wonderful country, and, I think, too often we have not done as well as we could in protecting minority interests. That is something that I look forward to working on with all of the senators over these next three years, as sensitive issues arise from time to time. Thank you very much.

It's a great honour and a privilege to stand here today as a re-elected Greens senator for Queensland and as the fifth parliamentary leader of the Australian Greens. I'd like to start by acknowledging the First Nations owners of this land, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. Wherever we are in this nation, we're living and working on stolen land; it's unceded land. We've got a long way to go before we can achieve any semblance of First Nations justice, which is sorely needed.

It's been 34 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and we haven't seen all of the recommendations implemented. Earlier this month, the Northern Territory coroner handed down her findings in the coronial inquest into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. My heart remains with his family and the community of Yuendumu, who endured more than five years of pain and unanswered questions. First Nations kids are 26 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous kids are. First Nations women are 33 times more likely to be hospitalised for violence than non-Indigenous Australians are. It's 2025, and we still don't have a truth-telling process in this country. The Voice referendum campaign clearly showed that there is a compelling case for truth-telling and treatymaking to deliver hope and justice and pathways towards healing for this ancient nation.

We're at a precipice as a nation and as a planet. We're facing concurrent crises that will impact us for generations if we don't make changes here and now. We know the climate and environment crisis is the defining issue of our generation. The climate wars were supposed to be over, but the major parties just can't stop approving coal and gas projects. I know I wasn't the only one who was disappointed when the newly re-elected Labor government kicked off its second term with the approval of Woodside's disastrous North West Shelf gas plant expansion.

Woodside's North West Shelf project will release more carbon pollution each year than all of Australia's coal-fired power stations combined and it will now run for 45 more years. This approval will haunt future generations. Approving fossil fuel usage out to 2070 will haunt future generations. Young people today are seeing the climate crisis getting worse, and they're worried about their future, but Labor's North West Shelf project will be heating the planet until 2070—long after their grandkids are born. But it is never too late to make positive change, and, with the coalition in the electoral weeds, arguing about whether or not to even have a net zero 2050 target, there has never been a better time to be ambitious.

Labor have got a large majority in the other place and they've got our support here in this chamber to take real action to protect the climate and to protect the environment. The Greens have made it clear we want to see meaningful climate action in this term of government. That's why the first thing we did this morning was put forward a bill for a climate trigger to force Labor to consider the climate impacts of fossil fuel projects. If passed, the bill would automatically reject climate bombs like Woodside's North West Shelf project and the Beetaloo gas project. Right now, the government can completely ignore climate impacts when it's approving new coal and gas projects or any other project.

The Greens have been put in the balance of power to get stuff done, and the Prime Minister knows that Australians want climate action. Nature cannot be put last like it has been for so long, and a really easy first step is to stop approving coal and gas projects. Right now, in South Australia, we're seeing the devastating impacts of a marine heatwave caused by climate change. An area twice the size of the ACT is now being choked by a toxic algal bloom that has killed tens of thousands of marine animals. Beaches are shut down—it's been happening for months, and scientists have warned us that this would happen. Now the crisis is here, and there's no end in sight. Coal- and gas-fuelled climate change is strangling the planet, communities and wildlife now.

This past May, four people lost their lives in devastating flooding in northern New South Wales. In Victoria, farmers are facing a nervous wait to see if the recent rains will continue and break the months-long drought in north-western Victoria, south-western Gippsland and north-central Victoria. In Queensland, my home state, on the Great Barrier Reef, scientists from JCU and Griffith University have found that 96 per cent of Lizard Island's reefs were impacted by mass bleaching in 2024 and only eight per cent of the affected corals survived. At the end of the country, the Great Southern Reef's kelp forests are quickly disappearing. There were once vast and thick underwater forests, but only five per cent of giant kelp forests remain—again, due to warmer waters caused by the climate crisis fuelled by coal and gas. How many canaries in the coalmine do we need before we start paying attention?

Alongside the climate and environment crisis, we're witnessing a housing crisis that has turned homeownership into a moneymaking scheme for already wealthy investors. Housing is a human right; it is not a commodity. The housing and rental crisis is deeply unfair and needs serious action. Everyone should be able to have an affordable, quality and secure home, and it is deeply unfair that an entire generation is locked out. Young people are living in fear of their next rent increase. They're avoiding reporting maintenance issues, because their landlords will end the lease or up the rent. Their only avenue to homeownership shouldn't be to rely on either asking the bank of mum or dad or receiving an inheritance.

This experience is particularly galling when we continue to hand out billions in perks to property investors, in the form of negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. It would be a lot easier to buy your first home if the government weren't giving massive tax discounts to wealthy property investors. There are now 150 billionaires in this country, and one-third of big corporations pay no tax. Why should a nurse pay more tax than a multinational gas company? By making big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share, we can bring down the cost of living, we can reduce inequality and we can make life better for millions of people.

In my very first speech to the Senate, I said:

It is with a big heart and a passionate belief in the goodness of humanity that I undertake this journey.

That is still true. I want to see this become our most progressive parliament and show people that we can do politics with heart. People expect a parliament that works together to genuinely tackle the issues that we're all facing, because people need and deserve more than just tinkering. We're in an epidemic of violence against women and yet frontline support services are still not fully funded to help everyone who seeks help. The government could readily fix that. Successive Australian governments have underfunded services, and those services could save lives. Stopping all forms of violence against women will take systemic action to tackle the root causes and to transform the harmful social norms, but it also requires adequate funding of the organisations that do the hard work on the frontlines. While this government has made some progress, it is yet to commit to fully funding frontline prevention and response services that support women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence. In a wealthy country like ours, it is obscene that women and children escaping violence could be turned away when seeking help, or forced to choose between staying in an unsafe relationship and living in their car or a tent, but that is the reality of what this funding shortfall means for people.

The Greens are ready to work together to transform people's lives for the better and to deliver real outcomes for people and the planet. We will continue to hold true to our values and work for peace, human rights, and social and economic justice, as we always have, and that includes a free Palestine. Like many people across the country, I have watched in horror as a genocide has unfolded on my phone screen. It has been difficult for me to understand how anyone in this place or outside it can see that and do nothing, say nothing. The Greens continue to respond to these horrors with compassion, with honesty and with a fierce determination to achieve a just and lasting peace. For there to be a peace, there must be an end to the State of Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and its ongoing genocide in Gaza. In recent weeks we've seen repeated humanitarian outrage, including 93 people killed in Gaza trying to access food, and UNRWA warns that Israeli authorities are starving civilians, including one million children.

Finally, after almost two years of this devastating conflict and continuing genocide, we saw our government join with other nations to demand an immediate end to the war in Gaza and for Israel to lift aid restrictions. That is a good thing, but the Israeli regime is not listening to stern words. We must sanction the Netanyahu government, end the two-way arms trade with Israel and get aid into Gaza immediately. Human rights matter. They must be respected and protected in all countries and for all people.

Our humanitarian obligations here in this place must also ensure that we're upholding our obligations to protect and promote the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and people who are stateless. In a country like ours, which has been built on immigration, we should take pride in our multicultural and migrant communities, but in the last parliament we saw both of the major parties demonise migrants and use them to distract from their own failings. The Greens remain steadfast in our calls for the elimination of mandatory and indefinite detention, and the abolition of offshore processing and other forms of punitive and discriminatory treatment. This is our time to make it happen.

At this election, like the one before it, people elected a balance-of-power Senate. It also continued the long-term trend of a collapse in support for the major parties. This Senate has been given a mandate by the Australian people to carefully scrutinise legislation, and that is what we intend to do. We need to address the inequality and cost-of-living crisis with real investment in world-class health, education and social services to make sure that no-one lives in poverty or insecurity. I know, as a mum to two marvellous children, that this will make life better for millions of people, and I want to leave this place knowing that I did everything possible to make that happen, knowing that I'm leaving the world a better place for them.

In this parliament, Labor can't pass any legislation without working either with the Greens or with the Liberals, and we know that the coalition will drag us backwards. We want Labor to be bold and to take this opportunity to make changes that really help people. I fear they won't do this without us pushing them, but I do come into this new parliament hopeful. This is a huge opportunity. Voters across this country have delivered the Greens the sole balance of power in the Senate, which gives the government a clear pathway to pass truly progressive reforms. We can make positive change. We can pass progressive reform to make this a kinder, fairer, more equitable, more sustainable place to live. We are urging the government to take this opportunity to be brave. This government has the pathway they need to do good things. They just need to have a little courage.

We can get dental into Medicare. We could wipe student debt in its entirety, not just 20 per cent of it, or eight per cent once you factor in the indexation. We could make child care free. We could end native forest logging and save what's left of the Great Barrier Reef. We could build public housing. We could make big corporations pay their fair share so that we could do all of those things and more. The only thing that could stand in the way is timidity by the Labor government. If we can't achieve these really very basic things, it will be because the government lacks the courage to face down their big corporate donors and the many lobbyists haunting the halls of this place.

People want a democracy that works for them, not one that delivers for vested interests. It is our shared responsibility in this parliament to deliver real reform that will help people in their daily lives and protect the planet. On behalf of two million people who voted Greens, we will fight to make sure our kids have a safe climate future and can afford a roof over their heads. We will fight for the millions of people who put the Greens in this important position and who have given us a mandate to hold the major parties to account and to push for outcomes and for politics with heart.

I rise to speak in response to the Governor-General's opening address to the 48th Parliament. In doing so, I particularly want to thank the South Australians who placed their trust in a continued Labor government. Personally, my thanks for returning me to this place.

The Labor government is a government working to deliver a better future. That is what we spent our last three years doing, and that is what we will spend this next term doing. In May this year, people in this country made a really clear decision, a clear decision to choose progress over paralysis, to choose fairness over division, to choose a government that would deliver on its promises. We saw a vote for stability, we saw a vote for opportunity and we saw a vote for a future where no-one is left behind. Australians know that we understand the pressures they are facing every single day—the cost-of-living challenges that we're all looking at, health care, housing—issues that are being addressed by this Labor government and will continue to be addressed by this Labor government. As the Governor-General said in her speech on Tuesday, the government will work to repay the trust that Australians have placed in us. That is our commitment. That is what we will do.

As we saw in the 2022 election and much more significantly in the 2025 election, the Labor caucus has expanded. With that expansion comes an expansion of the diversity of our team, a team that reflects the people across this country, a government that people can look to and see something they recognise. The backgrounds, the ages, the professions, the experiences, the cultures and the variety of different walks of life that our caucus now brings to government is what will ensure that we deliver for all Australians.

We saw just this morning my colleague Senator Walker stand up and give a very impressive first address to this chamber, talking about the importance of recognising the difference in views from young people to all ages. She also gave quite an impressive lesson on climate change to some of the older members of this chamber in terms of how the youth of our country actually view this issue. It's not the same climate wars negativity that we have experienced in here for so terribly long. Then we had another colleague, Senator Ananda-Rajah, regaling us with some excellent insights and the depth of her understanding and her knowledge into how our health system actually works, because she was a doctor in that system for 30 years. This diversity runs across the entirety of our caucus, and that brings something pretty special to this place.

We know that families across the country are doing it really tough. We know that there are pressures, including cost-of-living increases, and so the policies that we rolled out in the last term and through the election were to address those issues. One was cheaper medicines. A PBS prescription is capped at $25 a script from 1 January next year. That's the lowest it's been in 20 years. Then, for people who are on pensions or concession cards, those scripts are even cheaper, at $7.70. These are the kinds of things that make a difference every single day to how much money people have in their pockets and how they manage the pressures, many of which are global pressures, that we are facing on cost of living.

Something that's particularly important to me are our regional areas, particularly regional South Australia. It means peace of mind for a family in Whyalla or an older couple in Port Lincoln who are dealing with chronic illnesses that they won't have to make a decision between the grocery bill or the medicine bill. We are lowering those costs to help people cope and deal with the pressures right here, right now.

We've also opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics. These are a revolutionary insert into our health system. They are making a fundamental difference. People raise it with me unprompted when I'm out talking with the community. My family had cause to use the urgent care clinic in Port Adelaide just last year, where we would have normally gone to the emergency department. It was a broken bone. But we got the same service we would have got if we had gone to the emergency department, yet we didn't have the wait time and we didn't have the anxious pressure that you often feel in a hospital setting. More than that, we were not contributing to clogging up the health system. Having people treated at the right place, at the right time and in the right manner is about resizing and rebalancing our system and making sure that people get the care that they need when they need it and where they need it.

That brings me again to our regional areas. I was delighted during the campaign to be able to announce the commitment to an urgent care clinic in Whyalla. That will take the pressure off the Whyalla hospital, meaning people in the hospital are getting the treatment they need in a more timely fashion. The people who can be treated in an urgent care clinic will get that, and then, for people with their primary care, it's taking some of the pressure off that primary care system as well. Our regional areas are really important because the services that they have access to are so often much less available and accessible than we see in our capital cities.

One of the other things that we announced, which I think is going to make a big difference and I've had some really excellent feedback from, is the 1800MEDICARE free 24/7 health advice. It doesn't matter if the closest hospital is two hours away or three hours away. It doesn't matter if your doctor has a full list and you can't see them for a week and you can't drive to an urgent care clinic. You can pick up the phone and get some advice, and that advice may well be all you need. It may also be that critical piece of advice that says, 'No, you really do need to get to a hospital,' or, 'You really do need to see that doctor.' While this is going to be a great service for everyone, as a 24/7 service, for those parents amongst us, including me, when it's the middle of the night and you're not quite sure what to do, it is the perfect solution to get that advice so you know what action to take next. So I'm delighted to see that roll out into the future, and I'm pretty confident it's going to make a fundamental difference.

The other thing with the parliament now resumed is to deliver on our commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent, saving more than three million Australians an average of $5,500 each. This includes the over 11,000 people in the electorate of Grey, where I spend a lot of my time, who have student debt. That's not just university debt; we're talking about vocational education debt as well. This is across the board.

The education system that we're seeing grow and develop across that regional area is a delight to watch. I recently visited TAFE in Whyalla and saw some of the amazing things that are rolling out there through our fee-free TAFE. Students that have never had an opportunity to undertake the training they want now have access to it. I met—and I've spoken about this in this chamber before—a group of fee-free nursing students, one of whom told me that she had been seeking to be a nurse for many years. It had been a dream, but she could never afford it and would have to travel. Putting these services on the ground where they're needed, where people genuinely are so keen to fill the vacancies we have in these industries of need but they need support to do it—that's what this government is doing. That is what the Albanese Labor government is doing. It's providing that support, be it in early childhood, primary school, secondary school, TAFE or university.

Our university hubs across the seat of Grey are going gangbusters. They are doing such a great job bringing university education to those regions, helping those people study at home, where they want to live, not having to move to the city. The expansion of our TAFE campuses and the technical colleges, the stuff that we are doing hand in hand with the state Labor government, is showing green shoots of really excellent development for the future.

And we know that South Australia is at the heart of some of the manufacturing future of this country—the green, sustainable manufacturing future of this country. We're seeing those industries, seeing the opportunities, watching our education system grow, watching people coming through our vocational systems and knowing that they can see into the future how their workforce will be developed and delivered to them. These are the kinds of things—working on all the aspects of these developments, all of the aspects that come together to mean a strong, sustainable and productive future for our country, for our regional areas, for our towns and for our cities. It will encourage businesses to invest in these areas, knowing that those services are going to be there to support their workforce, that investing in Australia is a valuable thing to do, that they will find the workforce and that there will be health services and housing.

Our housing development is starting to pay off. We are starting to see houses on the ground. Many of my colleagues would disagree with that, but, fundamentally, if anybody would like to come and visit me in South Australia, I'd absolutely love to take you for a drive and show you the vast amount of housing development going on that is being driven by the federal government and supported through the federal and state governments working together. There are so many developments in South Australia that, when I stand here and listen to people say that there's nothing happening, I wonder where they live and what they're doing. Maybe they don't get out much. But the invitation stands. If anybody wants to come and have a look at the vast amount of development that's going on in South Australia, I would be delighted to show you, because I am so proud of what the Albanese Labor government is doing. I'm very excited for the 48th Parliament and what we will achieve in these coming years by building on the strong foundations that we started through the last term. We will continue to drive that delivery into the next term of government.

Our expanded team is ready to deliver. We're ready to deliver for all Australians, as I've said. This is about bringing our entire country together. We know that there was a choice to be made at the last election, a choice of either hatred, division and fear or an Albanese Labor government. I'm delighted that the people of Australia chose the latter, and we will repay the trust that people have placed in us. We are here to deliver on our promises. We are here to make our country stronger and fairer, to knit together our economic development with our energy transition and our protection of the environment and to be a strong economy and a strong, supportive and caring community.

I rise to speak in reply to the Governor-General's speech in what is a very historic time in our national political history. The federal election result on 3 May was historic for many reasons. It was historic for the Australian Labor Party and the coalition. It was a landslide victory for the Albanese Labor government and for the Labor Party and its members; it was the worst loss of seats for the coalition since 1944. The election result also meant a prime minister was returned to office after a full term, the first prime minister to be elected under those circumstances since John Howard. The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, lost his seat; for the first time since John Howard, a leader of the opposition lost their seat. So did the Leader of the Australian Greens, Adam Bandt, proving that the utopian vision of the Greens had been denied by the Australian people.

I could not be prouder of the Australian Labor Party, the labour movement, the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labor Party and every Labor Party member, our volunteers and all the union members who campaigned at this election because they knew how critical it was for this Labor government to be re-elected. We had to ensure that we were re-elected to be able to continue to build on the good work that we had done during the first term.

The Albanese Labor government wants a country where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind, a country of compassion and enthusiasm for our fellow Australians. It was an election to build our future and futureproof our nation during global uncertainty. The Australian people voted for certainty. They voted for Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Party because they knew we had a plan to address the cost-of-living challenges, a positive plan for Medicare and the cost of medicines, a plan for a modern Australia in challenging times. As the Prime Minister declared on election night, 'The Australian people voted for Australian values—for fairness, for aspiration and for opportunity for all.' Queensland is now equally represented between the two parties. South Australia's completely red in terms of seats held by the Albanese Labor government. In my home state of Tasmania we now have four out of five seats red in the House of Representatives.

We are a party of government. We have a platform. We had fully costed policies and we went through all the process of the Expenditure Review Committee and our cabinet. People had faith in us because they believed in our vision for this country: to build Australia's prosperity, to embrace the opportunities the world is presenting to us, to not shy away from challenges but to embrace them.

Labor's plan to open another 50 urgent care clinics across Australia is a bold step forward ensuring timely, accessible health care for families and individuals. By expanding urgent care, more Australians can get the help they need closer to home, reducing pressure on emergency departments and ensuring health remains a right, not a privilege.

Recognising the burden of student debt, Labor is delivering a 20 per cent reduction in student debt for millions of Australians, investing in Australia's future workforce and with a clear commitment to education as a vehicle for opportunity. We already introduced that legislation in the other place this morning.

Labor is legislating to secure penalty rates for 2.6 million Australians, ensuring workers are paid fairly for their time, especially when working unsociable hours. Investment in TAFE and vocational education is laying the foundations for a highly skilled workforce, while targeted funding in the care economy, including fair wages for aged-care workers and support for early childhood educators, reflects Labor's dedication to dignity and respect for all Australian workers.

The housing crisis is being addressed through significant investment to build more homes, making the dream of homeownership and affordable housing a reality for more Australians. We are increasing superannuation contributions to ensure that people can retire with security and dignity, while sustained funding for schools means every Australian child has access to quality education.

The stark contrast between the Albanese Labor government and those previous Liberal governments is that we work with our state and territories, because we want to put Australians first. That means delivering health care and education, because they are going to build the future of our very strong economy.

Internationally, the Anthony Albanese government is rebuilding and strengthening Australia's relationships with China and the Asia-Pacific, navigating global uncertainty with a focus on stability and robust trade partnerships. These initiatives together underpin Labor's vision for a compassionate, future-ready Australia.

When we stand alongside one another in this place, I think we should all recognise that we do live in the best country on earth, and that Australians generally know that. We don't want American policies on our shores—which are what Mr Dutton tried to bring to the last election. It must be noted that this election result is a complete repudiation of the policies and leadership style of the Liberal Party and the National Party. Those on the other side may try to blame others for their historic hopeless results, but the truth is Mr Dutton spent 24 years in the other place and left a trail of devastation. When the Liberals were last in government for nine long years—and yes, he left us with lots of ammunition to use during that last election—we presented Australians with a plan for a future and a vision of prosperity and promise, giving Australians hope. Unfortunately, Mr Dutton's character and his record were reflected in the results of the ballot paper.

We as Australians like Americans, and we admire much about Americans, but we don't want American-style politics brought into this country. The result demonstrated very clearly that Australians want a government that puts its people first and invests in the things that Australians need and ask for.

There was a person who fanned the flames of division during this last election period. But we saw a historic victory, with Mr Dutton losing his seat. I want to congratulate the new member for Dickson, Ali France, and to say how inspiring she is. She inspired all of us, during that campaign, to never give up on what you believe in. So I congratulate the new member for Dickson. I know that Ali will be a wonderful representative, not only for the people of Dickson but for our country as a whole.

There are lots of questions, and I'm sure there are lots of discussions going on in those rooms, from those on the opposite side of the chamber. But there is a stark contrast. You can either put forward a positive economic plan to invest in your people, by investing in education, health and aged care and giving hope to young people by ensuring that we have the best education system anywhere in the world, or you can be negative and try and pull people down—and those were the alternative policies that were talked about by those opposite leading up to the last election. But the reality is that there were really no policies put up by those opposite, because they had no vision. What they did was offer the Australian people 25c a litre off their petrol, as if that alone was going to help with the challenges of the cost of living.

What we should be focused on now is ensuring that, as a government, we continue to listen to the Australian people and, in our second term of government, build on the investment that we made into our communities during our first term. But I think it's important to remember that, when the Australian people vote, I've never known them yet to get it wrong, and that's even when they've put Labor into opposition. That's a lesson that every politician and aspiring politician should learn—that you have to listen to your community on what is important to them and reflect that in your policies.

But I must admit that this was a victory that I was not expecting. I'll quite openly admit that, going into that election campaign, I knew that we had good policies and we had a lot to defend, but I did not expect the result that we had. That result gives us a lot of responsibility. We have a lot of new members in the House of Representatives. Fortunately, on our side, we also have additional senators, and I welcome each and every one of them because it just means we can share the workload and they can be part of what I consider to be a fantastic Labor government under the leadership of Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers and their fellow cabinet members and ministers.

I'm sure, coming from Tasmania, that most Tasmanians who had to go back to the polls on Saturday have had enough of elections for a while, but I want to say to them that having four out of five seats in the House of Representatives means that they are going to have a very strong voice in this government. I want to acknowledge and welcome to the other place Jess Teesdale, the new member for Bass. What a triumphant victory, with an extraordinary nine per cent swing to Jess. As a duty senator I will continue to work with her, and I congratulate her.

But I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge Bridget Archer, the former member for Bass, who I worked with across various forums in this place, and to acknowledge the work she did while she was here. I congratulate her as the newly elected member for Bass in the Tasmanian parliament. I know she will continue to work for her constituency. Even though we were on opposite sides of the chamber, we did work together very well in this place and in our community.

I'd also like to congratulate the former state Labor leader, Rebecca White, who was the former state member for Lyons. She was elected as the federal member for Lyons, defeating Susie Bower. I welcome her to the Tasmanian federal Labor Party team. I also congratulate the former government whip, former senator Anne Urquhart, who defeated Mal Hingston for the seat of Braddon. She had the biggest swing in the country of 15 per cent, so congratulations to Anne Urquhart in that other place. She'll miss being here, I'm sure. I also want to congratulate Minister Julie Collins on her re-election in Franklin. I'd also like to acknowledge Senator Carol Brown for being re-elected to this place and representing the great state of Tasmania, and, of course, our new incoming senators: Senator Richard Dowling, a Tasmanian here in the chamber with me now; and Josh Dolega, also joining the Tasmanian team. It's great to have two fresh young faces, new enthusiastic senators, who will bring their own personalities and experience to this place.

There is so much more work to be done, but I want to talk about some of the things that we've done, which we will continue to build on. There is the legislation that was introduced this morning to reduce HECS debts by 20 per cent, which was an election commitment. We will continue to support TAFE because we have to ensure that we have the skills available in our workforce. We've had great achievements, including supporting lower paid workers, such as those in the caring economy and in aged care, which I've been a champion on for the entire time I've been in this place, and the increase of wages for aged-care workers and early childhood educators. These are only a couple of the things that, as a Labor senator, I'm very proud that our government is delivering.

There's so much more to talk about, such as the increase of paid parental leave, paying superannuation on that, and 12 per cent superannuation. We must never forget it was a Labor government that introduced superannuation. If you listened to those opposite, they wanted you to raid your superannuation. Instead of building more affordable and social housing, they would actually want you to raid your superannuation. There's bad policy in each way that they go. I'd also like to take— (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

I rise to respond to the address by the Governor-General, Her Excellency the Hon. Sam Mostyn, to mark the opening of the 48th Parliament of Australia.

No-one left behind and no-one held back—this is what the Albanese government is all about. It's what the Prime Minister took to the election, and it's what each of us, as members of the Albanese government, took to our constituents. It's what guides us in a second-term Albanese government. Our No. 1 focus is continuing to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians.

We promised cutting student debt would be the first thing we'd do in the 48th Parliament, and that's exactly what we're doing, because getting an education shouldn't mean a mountain of debt. No-one left behind and no-one held back is also what guides me in my role as the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I'm focused on delivering on our substantial commitments for First Nations people. We're delivering remote housing, we're delivering remote jobs and we're delivering remote food security. We are focused on economic empowerment and we are focused on closing the gap. We're working in partnership with First Nations people, communities and organisations as well as governments right across Australia, because closing the gap is everyone's responsibility.

Improving outcomes in remote communities is one of our biggest challenges, which is why I am so pleased the Prime Minister has created a new role of Special Envoy for Remote Communities. I'm thrilled that that position has been given to the member for Lingiari, whose electorate includes all of the Northern Territory's remote First Nations communities. I know that the member's fierce advocacy and commitment will make a difference for remote communities across Australia. It's an absolute pleasure to work with the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour.

One of the ways we're investing in remote communities is our new Low-Cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme, which began on 1 July. It's reducing the cost of 30 essential items in remote communities; delivering important cost-of-living relief; and reducing the cost of everyday items like rice, tinned vegetables, nappies and toilet paper so that they are comparable to supermarket prices in cities. This follows a successful trial in dozens of communities, delivering to remote residents something that those living in the cities take for granted.

I recently visited the Outback Stores warehouse in Darwin with the Special Envoy for Remote Communities so that both of us could see the products that are going out to communities. Along with the subsidy scheme, there is a new National Code of Practice for Remote Store Operations and a dedicated governance training and support package for staff. We're also investing in upskilling staff in more than 100 stores to promote good nutrition and healthy choices to consumers to help improve health outcomes in our remote communities.

The Albanese government is committed to working with First Nations people, communities, organisations and enterprises to drive economic empowerment and self-determination. We are delivering a First Nations economic partnership. We have strengthened Indigenous Business Australia by enabling investment in First Nations businesses and communities. Jobs are, of course, at the centre of our focus on economic empowerment. The Albanese government understands that having a real job changes lives, particularly in our remote regions.

Our Remote Jobs and Economic Development program will create up to 3,000 new jobs in remote communities over three years. Already there have been 650 new jobs funded with more than 100 local employers across the country, and there will soon be more jobs on the ground. I'm absolutely focused on this. Later this year we will also deliver the new Remote Australia Employment Service, replacing the failed Community Development Program. The first grant opportunity opened last month, marking another important milestone. This new program focuses on supporting jobseekers into real work, including through community projects.

One area of economic and environmental work that I'm incredibly proud of is the Indigenous Rangers Program. I've been really incredibly lucky to see the great work of rangers as I travel right across Australia, from the Arafura Swamp in north-east Arnhem Land to Groote Eylandt, from Queanbeyan, near Canberra, to Red Bay and Tamworth in New South Wales, from Cairns and back down to Healesville in Victoria. All of our First Nations rangers are doing an incredible job.

Order! It being 12.15, the Senate will now move to senators' statements.

I wish to update the Senate on developments regarding the algal bloom in my home state of South Australia. We South Australians love our beaches and our coastline. We are rightly proud of them. They are without doubt some of the most beautiful in the world and they are part of our way of life. For many South Australians they provide a livelihood. Like so many other South Australians, I have very fond memories of a lot of time spent on the Fleurieu, long days at Goolwa, taking on the waves at Boomer and camping down the Coorong. Now, as a parent, I get to experience the wonder of Horseshoe Bay at Port Elliot all over again. My mum lived for many years down at Carrickalinga, on the other side of the peninsula, a serene place of respite for many from Adelaide and beyond.

So I feel the sense of alarm and despair that so many other South Australians feel as we watch dead sea life wash up on our shores. The algal bloom we are experiencing in South Australia is unprecedented and extreme. It was first detected in March at Waitpinga Beach. Since then it has spread over 4,400 square kilometres. We have never seen anything like it. We've never seen a bloom of its scale or duration anywhere in Australia. It is affecting Kangaroo Island, the Fleurieu, Gulf St Vincent, Spencer Gulf, the Coorong and our metropolitan beaches. The bloom has been linked to the mass mortality of over 400 different species, including many species of finfish, sharks, rays, crustaceans and more. Horrifically, we have seen the extensive wash-up of these species on our shores.

On Monday, the Minister for the Environment and Water travelled to Adelaide and announced that the federal government will investment $14 million in support, acting on a request from the state government for assistance. On Tuesday, Premier Malinauskas announced the next stage of the South Australian government's response, indicating they will match our investment. Together this funding is going towards: science and research, including the development of a dedicated harmful algal bloom response plan for future blooms; a public communication strategy to include weekly media updates for the public; public forums for those communities impacted and public information campaigns; industry assistance in the form of small business support grants of $10,000, building on the licence fee relief for affected fishers announced earlier this month; and $4 million towards community support and clean-up efforts along our beaches and coastline.

Earlier this month, before some of my overseas travels, I was briefed on the situation by the Deputy Premier of South Australia and minister for the environment, Dr Susan Close. She told me then what scientists have said publicly, that unfortunately there is no quick fix for the algal bloom. So I want to assure South Australians that the federal government will continue to support the South Australian government in their response.

That is why we are supporting a bipartisan Senate inquiry to examine the causes, frequency, scale and duration of events such as algal blooms—to better understand the current situation and inform preparation for future outbreaks. Whilst Australia has always faced damaging natural weather and environmental events, we have all long been warned that their intensity, frequency and unpredictability will increase due to climate change. This is why, when we came to government, we pledged to end a decade of denial and delay on climate by legislating a target of net zero emissions by 2050 while working towards reducing Australia's emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. On ocean protection, I am proud that Australia now protects more of our oceans than any other country in the world, some 52 per cent. But this algal bloom shows that the work of protecting the natural environment couldn't be more urgent.

The Liberals, particularly those in South Australia, some of whom don't even believe in climate change, want the federal government to abandon the net zero target.

Senator McLachlan?

Not Senator McLachlan—he is one of the sensible ones. I think he and Senator Antic or Mr Tarzia should have a conversation about what the state Liberals want to do. Unlike the South Australian Liberal Party—present company excepted—I want to assure South Australians that the Albanese Labor government understand the seriousness of the situation and, with the South Australian government, are taking action to restore and protect our beaches, to support those impacted economically, and, most fundamentally, to take action on climate change.

It's a real honour to deliver this speech to acknowledge my friend and colleague former senator Catryna Bilyk. Catryna and I have shared more than just a party room over the past 17 years. We've shared campaigns, committee hearings, community events, late-night Senate debates, travel and many laughs along the way. We have stood shoulder to shoulder advocating for Tasmania, for Labor values, and for those who often go unheard in the halls of power.

Seventeen years of service in the Senate is no small feat, and in that time Catryna built a legacy that is as broad as it is deep. Whether it was championing low-survival-rate cancers, especially brain cancer research; standing up for children's safety; fighting for fairer wages; or helping families navigate palliative care and disability support, Catryna never stopped advocating for those in need. And she got results: the investments in brain cancer research—over $170 million from the government—secured as a direct result of her advocacy; the reforms to get NDIS access for brain tumour patients; her efforts to keep Palliative Care Tasmania open, not once but twice; the national assistance card program she helped extend to autism; and her fierce, fearless campaigning to improve survival rates for cancers that have long been neglected. These achievements continue to change lives, long after she left this place.

But Catryna didn't just push for government investment; she rolled up her sleeves and raised money herself. Through Walk4BrainCancer events, she personally helped raise more than $220,000 for research. That's enough to fund a small clinical trial through the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation. It's a powerful example of her determination to keep fighting for better outcomes however she could.

Catryna did all this while dealing with enormous personal challenges, including surgeries for brain tumours. I think most of us in this chamber will never forget the strength and resilience she showed during those times not just in facing those challenges but in coming to this chamber and working hard, just 10 weeks after, driven by that same fierce determination to make a difference. Catryna never let her own battle stop her fighting for others. That is the kind of person she is. She's as tough as they come but leads with kindness.

She also played a major role across Senate committees over the years. Inquiries she chaired and contributed to have helped shape policy on everything from education and employment to communications. Her work on facilitating and chairing the Select Committee into Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates gave a voice to families and patients who had been left behind for far too long. It didn't just make headlines; it delivered outcomes. Catryna brought that same compassion and courage to her work on the Senate inquiry into stillbirth research and education. As someone who had personally experienced the heartbreak of stillbirth, she helped break the silence that too often surrounds it. Through this inquiry, Catryna gave notice to countless families and pushed for national action, including better bereavement care, improved data collection and stronger public education. Her contribution helped shift stillbirth from a hidden tragedy to a national conversation.

Catryna brought that same compassion and conviction to her international work. As co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Ukraine and the Parliamentary Friends of Japan groups, she brought both personal passion and political weight to global issues. Her advocacy for Ukraine in the face of Russia's illegal invasion was grounded not only in principle but also in her family's Ukrainian heritage. In the Parliamentary Friends of Japan group, she worked to strengthen one of Australia's most important regional partnerships. In both roles, she helped build lasting parliamentary solidarity and international friendship. Her involvement in so many other parliamentary friendship groups reflects that same drive.

Whether it was the Parliamentary Friends of Palliative Care, the Parliamentary Friends of Parkinson's or the Parliamentary Friends of Children's Literacy, or advocacy to prevent child abuse and neglect, Catryna never limited herself to what was in the headlines—she got stuck into the work that mattered. She brought the same care and focus to her role as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. Survivors of institutional abuse had been promised justice and support. Catryna made sure that promise was not forgotten, and she never let the urgency of that work slip from view.

That deep sense of justice has guided her throughout her career. Before entering parliament, Catryna was a unionist, an early childhood educator, a public servant and a government adviser. She spent decades fighting for early childhood educators to be paid fairly and treated with respect. That commitment to equality and dignity for working people has always been the core of her politics. She never sought the spotlight; she sought outcomes. In this chamber, Catryna has consistently put children, families and those in vulnerable situations at the centre of her work. From cybersafety to online literacy, from palliative care to early childhood education, she has seen issues through a human lens, not a partisan one.

She is also one of the most authentic people you will ever meet in politics. There is no pretence with Catryna. What you see is what you get; she says what she means and she means what she says. You could not ask for a more loyal friend or a more principled colleague. We have travelled together across Tasmania over the years—and, if anyone knows me, they know that's a difficult prospect—and, whether it was a seniors morning tea, a childcare centre, a cancer fundraiser or a local community forum, you could see straightaway how much people trusted her, because she listened, she cared and she followed up.

As Julie Collins, the member for Franklin, put it, 'Catryna is the best duty senator an MP can ask for.' It's a simple line, but it says so much about how deeply valued Catryna has been by those she has worked alongside—always dependable and always focused on delivering for her community. People knew they had someone in their corner when Catryna was on their side.

To Catryna's family: thank you. You have shared Catryna with the Senate, with Tasmania, and with the Labor movement for nearly four decades. We know the personal sacrifices that come with public life. We thank you for your patience, your support and your love. To Catryna's staff: you know better than anyone just how hard Catryna works. Your dedication and support made a huge difference in helping her achieve all that she has achieved. You have been part of this journey too, and you should be proud.

Catryna stepped away from the Senate, leaving behind a legacy of service, courage and achievement. She has helped shape a better Tasmania and a fairer Australia. She has never forgotten where she comes from, she has never stopped believing that politics can be a force for good and she has never once let the people of Tasmania down. While I'll miss seeing Catryna in the chamber, I know this isn't the end. She'll keep making a difference because that's who she is. Whether it's through community work, advocacy or simply spending more time with loved ones, her passion and care will carry on.

Catryna, it has been the greatest privilege to work alongside you, to campaign with you, to serve with you and to call you a friend. From one Tasmanian senator to another and from one proud Labor woman to another: thank you for everything you have done for our state, for our party and for the people who needed you most.

I acknowledge that former senator Catryna Bilyk is in the chamber with her former chief of staff, Daniel Hume. On behalf of the ALP caucus, you left this place with the respect of your colleagues, the love of your community and a legacy that will endure. Enjoy this next chapter; you have more than earned it.

On behalf of the chamber, I also add, 'Welcome back,' Senator Bilyk, and congratulations on your career.

Senator Bilyk, don't leave yet; I'm about to say something nice about you as well. I associate myself with the lovely remarks from Senator Brown. I would also like to acknowledge, from the perspective of the coalition, the strength, the resilience and the authenticity of Senator Bilyk; her wonderful sense of humour, which I enjoy very much; and her collegiality.

From my perspective, one of the ways to assess the character of someone is to look at the things they don't have to do but do anyway. One of the things I greatly appreciated about Senator Bilyk was that she reached out to me when I became chair of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity oversight committee and she invited me to a cup of tea to discuss the function of the committee and things I should know as a chair. That was a sign of collegiality which I greatly appreciated and which left a lasting impression on me and a sense of collegiality which I'll seek to emulate for as long as I'm honoured to continue to serve in the Senate.

So thank you very much for your service, Senator Bilyk. It was wonderful to see you in Parliament House. Whenever I see you, Senator Bilyk, I've got a smile on my face, which is probably the best comment I can say about you.

On 25 March 2025, in the last week of the last parliament, I gave a speech in the Senate calling upon the Australian government to advocate, through all available international forums, the protection of ethnic and religious minorities in Syria. In the first week of this new parliament, I am now moved to rise again to speak on the same subject. On 19 July 2025 I met with members of the Queensland Syrian Christian community. This followed the horrific suicide terrorist attack on 22 June 2025 on the Mar Elias church in Damascus, which killed more than 25 worshippers and injured over 60 others. I quote from the incredibly powerful address given by patriarch John of Antioch at the funeral service for some of the victims:

What happened is a massacre. I repeat and emphasize: it is a massacre.

It is a targeted attack on a fundamental component of our beloved Syria.

An attack on every Syrian.

Later in his speech, patriarch John of Antioch movingly described the heroic efforts of three parishioners to save others:

This criminal entered the church, being armed and carrying explosives. Our young men—Jiries, Bishara, and Boutros, whom I know personally—saw him. They pulled him back, pushed him away, and threw themselves on him. They willingly accepted to be torn apart, and they were, so they could safeguard those inside the church. This is our people. They are our heroes.

Many members of the Queensland Syrian Christian community have very close connections with this church. I met a woman who was married in the church. I saw photos of a close friend of a community member, who was severely injured. I was shown video footage of the aftermath of the attack. It was indescribable. It will stay with me always.

At my meeting over the weekend, I also spoke with two women currently in Syria who have family members living in Queensland. I spoke to them face to face over the internet. Their situation is intolerable. Their fear and desperation were palpable. I heard of threats made to replicate the attack on the Mar Elias church, odious slogans saying, 'Your turn is next,' being painted onto church walls and incendiary pamphlets being disseminated calling for 'destroying the homes of Christians, slaughtering their children and taking their women captive'. I heard of the disruption of a further potential suicide attack on a church in Tartus in mid-July, which has also been reported by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. I heard of the burning of a church in al-Sura and the destruction of 38 homes belonging to Christian families. I heard of the continual fear of violence against unarmed civilians—including sexual violence—and of kidnappings and murder. I heard of members of Christian religious orders being forced to cooperate in the production of propaganda. What I heard was deeply disturbing.

Following the suicide terrorist attack on the church, the European Parliament passed a resolution recognising the urgent need to protect ethnic and religious minorities in Syria. The resolution:

Notes, with concern, that many Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) members with grave human rights violation records have assumed roles within the transitional administration, with potentially concerning implications for religious freedom, as evidenced by the recurrence of incidents involving Syrian officials;

The resolution also:

Urges the Syrian transitional authorities to facilitate swift, transparent and independent investigations into these acts, and take all necessary actions to quell sectarian violence, ensure accountability, including by prosecuting perpetrators and enablers of human rights violations such as in the case of Mar Elias, uphold freedom of religion and protect all communities;

As I give this speech, there is also the ongoing, devastating situation in Suwayda, which is of grave concern. At my meeting on the weekend I was shown a video of three men being forced at gunpoint by militia to jump off a balcony to their deaths—an act of barbarity which, once seen, is impossible to forget. To give voice to the concerns of the community, I can do no better than to once again quote from the address given by patriarch John of Antioch during the funeral service for some of the victims of the suicide bombing:

What our people want is security and peace. The primary duty of the government is to ensure safety for all citizens without exception or discrimination.

In the service, patriarch John of Antioch then courageously and powerfully directed comments to the president. He said:

Mr. President,

We congratulated the revolution and its victory in all our speeches. We also congratulated you personally. And when you became the president of the country, we congratulated you and did everything necessary because we are true citizens of this land. We are Syrians, proud and genuine. Our country is our land and our dignity. I have said it before and I will say it again: we have extended our hands to you to build the new Syria, and we still, sadly, wait to see a hand extended back to us.

Those are the words of patriarch John of Antioch at the funeral service for victims of the Mar Elias suicide bombing, which has traumatised our Syrian Australian Christian community.

I call upon the Australian government to do all it can through all international forums to advocate for the protection of ethnic and religious minorities in Syria. I call upon the Australian government to listen and respond to the concerns of the Syrian Australian Christian community with respect to access for their loved ones to Australia's humanitarian program, including the vulnerable women and children trapped in Syria who have close family links to Australia. Please, hear their pleas. I call upon the Australian government to do all that it can to provide support to the Syrian Australian community during this most traumatic of times. Finally, I grieve with those Australians who have lost loved ones in Syria, and I hope and pray for peace for all the people of Syria.

I rise to speak on a very important matter relating to the harm of gambling advertising and the scourge that it is across the country. This election saw a significant result for the Albanese government. The government now has a super-majority in the House. Here in the Senate, the government has the opportunity to work to get its legislation through. This could be one of the most progressive parliaments in living memory if the Prime Minister of today wishes to take the opportunity, but it's going to take courage and it's going to take conviction. I say all this because what we need in order to deal with the scourge of gambling addiction and the advertising of gambling products to Australians—many young, many gambling addicted individuals—is political courage to deal with this, to take it head on.

In the last term of government, the Labor Party promised to move and to act on gambling reform. They fell well short of what was expected by the community, what was required of the issue and what had been promised. The Albanese government now has a second term. They've got a second shot at it, and it's time they acted. In the last term of government there was that incredible report handed down by the late Peta Murphy that had unanimous support from across the parliamentary chamber, with members of the coalition, members of the crossbench, members of the Greens and members of the Labor Party all agreeing that there needed to be something done seriously and fully to combat gambling addiction and the harm of gambling, particularly when it's being targeted to our young people—particularly young men—and that that needed to happen in the form of banning gambling advertising. Promises were made, but nothing was delivered. We've heard all the ins and outs of the stories of what happened, who went weak and who met with what lobbyist within the gambling industry, the advertising industry, the broadcasting television companies and the big sports codes, but the truth of the matter is that Labor went weak. They couldn't stare down the vested interests that have been making massive profits and money from the harm and addiction of vulnerable Australians.

Well, Labor has a second shot at it, and I urge them to take it. We need courage and conviction because gambling in Australia is out of control. In terms of how much we lose per person in Australia, we are world leaders. Australians lose more money in gambling than do other people right around the world. We have very few controls on the advertising that this insidious industry has. We have our young people and our children being targeted on their mobile phones, on their TVs, when they're watching YouTube and when they're watching their favourite sporting heroes. Australia's young people are being targeted by gambling companies to get them addicted, for nothing other than the profits of the gambling industry. Australians lost more than $32 billion in the financial year 2022-23. Imagine what could happen with that amount of money being invested in other parts of our economy and our community. But, instead, tens of billions of dollars per year is coming straight out of the pockets of regular Australians into the hands of the gambling companies. It's obscene.

Just like we banned the advertising of tobacco, because we knew that it was a health disaster, we should be doing the same when it comes to gambling. We have the opportunity for genuine reform that is good for the community, good for public health and good for people's budgets. But the government and the Prime Minister have to have the guts to do it. I know there are many advocates who have been crying out for this reform for a very long time—people like Tim Costello and many, many others. There are families who have been desperately pleading for the suffering to stop. It's time they were listened to. No more excuses from this government that it's all too tough and too hard to do. This government has all the numbers it needs to get this reform done if it's got the guts and the will to do it.

The Greens have proposed, reflecting those recommendations in the Peta Murphy report, that there should be a full ban on gambling advertising. If the advertising of this dangerous product is bad for public health, then you can't just have a little bit; you should get rid of all of it. We don't let tobacco companies target our children just so that they can keep turning a dime, and we shouldn't be letting the gambling companies do it either. There are, of course, ways to get there. There are steps that could be taken. There are compromises that have been floated. I think we should do a full ban on the advertising of gambling. I am not suggesting for a second that people should be stopped from gambling. If you are an adult and you have the responsibility to do that, if you want to have a flutter on the horses, if you want to put a few bets on at certain times, that's up to you. But the gambling companies should not be able to advertise this product, because it is harmful, it is dangerous, and all it does is wreck the families and the lives of Australians and suck money out of our community for their own greedy, selfish profit.

I wrote to the Prime Minister on the eve of the election and I offered the Prime Minister a compromise and a way through. I urge this government: don't waste any more time. Don't wait until the gambling companies and the big corporate sporting codes have their claws in you again. That is of course what happens, because these gambling companies donate to the political parties. They offer nice trips to the footy, opportunities to sit in the corporate boxes, to be wined and dined, to be wished a happy birthday. Stand up to the bullies in the gambling industry. Stare them down and stand by the welfare and protection of Australians and Australian kids. We need to get this done urgently because as soon as the gambling lobby get a whiff of reform that might happen, they will instantly get into this government and members on the benches in this place with their hooks and their threats and their bullying. We need to act now. I urge the government: don't wait for reform. You know what needs to happen. The recommendations are there. You promised to do it. Work with the Senate to get it done, and get it done this side of Christmas.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to make some remarks at the beginning of this parliament and congratulate everyone for being re-elected to their positions. It is a great honour to be a representative of the people of New South Wales. It is perhaps a term that is used too often, but it is a great honour. It is perhaps the greatest honour you could have in a professional capacity, and I wanted to thank the people of New South Wales for having me again. Of course I want to also thank my party, the Liberal Party, for putting up with me again. I'm sure I have at times tested the patience of certain members, but I am grateful that the members of my party decided that I was worth another go.

In these last six years, a lot has happened, and I think it's a healthy thing to consider whether or not you have, in fact, done your best—whether you have made the type of policy contribution that you could make. Most of us will spend a relatively small portion of our lives in this endeavour. I think it is a healthy thing for people to consider whether they are always doing everything they can do to, in our case, not only hold the government to account but to come up with creative and collaborative ideas where the taxpayer can get the best possible value. I would say to you, Deputy President, that the best work of the Senate happens in the committees. I think most senators would agree with that. A lot of the work that we undertake here in this chamber is sometimes embarrassing, and I think we do revert to a form of political war too often. But it is genuinely an opportunity to collaborate, and I regret very much that the public don't see the collegial nature of a lot of the Senate's best work through its committees. I think that is a great shame.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the good people of my state for having me again and to acknowledge, in the spirit of humility and, perhaps, embarrassment, that this was a very disappointing result for my party. Some good personal friends have been lost from this place, including Jenny Ware, Bridget Archer, James Stevens, Keith Wolahan and others. I will miss them very much over these next three years. I want to recommit myself to do the best I can. My leader, Sussan Ley, has given me a great opportunity to work on productivity, deregulation, housing and homelessness, and I will do that with vigour. But I will also do what I promised I would do at the commencement of my term six years ago when given an opportunity to talk about the broader agenda in a first speech.

At the time, I referred to former president of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, who famously said after a significant coal strike in 1902 that he was not going to intervene to support the workers or the capitalists but to support the people as a representative of the people. He later told a friend—and I have to say that I do like this quote:

Now, I believe in rich people who act squarely, and in labor unions which are managed with wisdom and justice; but when either employee or employer, laboring man or capitalist, goes wrong, I have to cinch him, and that is all there is to it.

I like that quote because I think it's important that we don't get bogged into our trenches too often and that we're able to see the bigger picture here. I think what Roosevelt was getting at was that we all are stewards of the public interest.

In this particular endeavour here in the Senate, what is going to be the best policy prescription is what is going to be debated a lot across this chamber over the next three years. Everything is polluted with vested interests. That is the reality. Particularly as the state gets bigger and bigger and there is a blurring of the line between what is the real private economy and what is the subsidised economy, the non-market economy, we've got to be very clear about what it is that we're trying to achieve here in this country. I would say to you that we're all here to support the people. We're all here to support enterprise. I'm sure we're all here to support individuals and small businesses. I'm sure we all agree with that. We want to support good unions. Senator Sheldon spent a large part of his professional career in a union, and I know that he would have done that with a pure heart. There are a lot of good unions, a lot of good people in the trade unions, but we want to get the best outcome for people.

This scourge of vested interests, which is always going to be part of a political system like ours, needs to be properly understood for what it is, because of the nature of the debates we're going to have about the NDIS, health care, superannuation and child care. There are many laudable objectives, and it's very important that we have a country which supports people that need government support. It's very important for our cohesion and it's important for our sense of who we are. But it is important that we are aware of the risks to the taxpayer. What I hope for this parliament is that we're able to have a more nuanced, sophisticated debate about the role of the state in our country and that we all strive to protect people who are vulnerable and need assistance. I think it is disappointing that we in my party didn't have a homelessness policy at the last election. That is a matter of embarrassment and regret, but it's not a mistake we'll make again.

In closing, I say again that we will be looking for opportunities—and I will be—to work with everyone in this Senate. The government is the government, and there is a conflict inherent in the Senate that members of the Senate are also members of the government; I respect and understand that, and there are provisions for that. But the crossbench at large and the opposition—which is officially us, the Liberal-National coalition—have a very important constitutional role here to hold the government to account, to make sure they can be the best government they can be and to make sure they are administering programs properly and spending taxpayer funds wisely.

Once again, I'm very grateful to do this job. I'm not sure how long I'll be doing it for, but certainly I look forward to serving out these six years. I will do my absolute best for the people who have given me this job, and I hope not to let people down too many times.

Recent reports of abuse in early learning centres across Victoria are abhorrent and deeply disturbing. These are places where children should feel safe and be educated and nurtured, not put in harm's way. My heart breaks for the families who have experienced this profound betrayal of trust. As a mother of young children, it is impossible to comprehend what that betrayal of trust feels like.

But these incidents sadly cannot be seen in isolation. They are part of a disturbing pattern and the result of a system that is failing—a system that allows private providers to put profit before care. These providers consistently perform worse on quality and safety. They cut corners, bend staffing rules and churn through underpaid educators while often funnelling public money to offshore shareholders. This for-profit childcare model is untenable. Until the government confronts that fact, the measures introduced today in the other place, while welcome, will fall short of what is needed to keep children safe and deliver the high-quality early learning system that every single child in this country deserves. I have personally reached out to the Prime Minister and to Minister Walsh to offer to work together. We must work together; our children are too important for us not to. The Greens have a plan, including to establish an independent watchdog with teeth. The sector is calling for change, and we are ready to work together on real reform with this government.

I also want to acknowledge our educators who are dedicated professionals and are deeply committed to the children in their care, and I see that every time I drop my daughter off at child care. I know many of them personally and I see the commitment they make every single day. But they are underpaid and undervalued and they work in a system that often doesn't centre their expertise or the needs of children. To those educators: we see you and we'll keep fighting for better pay, for better working conditions and for an early learning system that puts people ahead of profit.

I also stand before this parliament carrying the stories of too many Australians who should be safe to love and exist yet who find themselves under attack once again. Two queer businesses in Melbourne, long established as safe havens for gay men and the wider queer community, were defaced with slurs and Nazi hate symbols less than three weeks ago. Disturbingly, these aren't isolated acts. We also know of reports of assaults and robberies targeting the users of gay dating apps. Police have made 35 arrests in connection with these attacks in Victoria alone, and advocates have stressed that in many cases victims are unable to come forward, meaning that we don't likely know the true extent and prevalence of this horrific violence. These attacks aren't new but the most recent in a wave of targeted violence against queer people. While the broader community has made strides towards greater equality and inclusion, within the far-right fringe there is a crisis of dangerous, anti-queer hatred, and I must call out what has been a failure of successive governments to adequately recognise it. The rise of the far right and its success in radicalising young people online has been a driving force of this crisis for years. We saw it in 2023 when antitrans hate culminated in the shutdown of drag storytime events across Victoria, and I can see the same deranged rhetoric being repackaged and repurposed to vilify the LGBTIQA+ community in 2025.

The Greens have recommended reforms aimed at stopping the proliferation of hate online and the deep harm that it causes. Stronger measures, like a digital duty of care, tighter data protections and a ban on profiting from extreme content, could help make online spaces safer, especially for young queer people, who are far too often the targets of abuse, hate and violence. The community is also calling for urgent action in our schools, including inclusive curriculums, the removal of laws that allow discrimination against queer teachers and students, and a national education campaign to promote acceptance of trans and gender-diverse people. These reforms are about creating a future where the community can live, work and learn in safety, dignity and pride. It is unacceptable that trans, queer and gender non-conforming people are time and time again having to rally together to create safety when the government should be guaranteeing their safety. Queer people deserve to lead safe, respected and valued lives, free from discrimination and hate. Equality is non-negotiable. The Greens are here with you, and we will be unrelenting in our fight for your rights. (Time expired)

It has been nearly three months since the 47th Parliament rose, and in that time I have met Canberrans here at Parliament House, where a thousand people turned up to listen to Dr Mo talk about his experiences as an emergency doctor in Gaza, at town halls, roundtables, mobile offices and in the community. From every conversation, one message is clear: we need a parliament with courage, not caution. We need a parliament tackling the hard reform, not just chasing the headline. But in this place I'm concerned that urgency is lacking, that the big vision is missing. Canberrans aren't asking for miracles; we're asking for a government that matches the magnitude of the challenges with the strength of its response.

The first issue Canberrans raise again and again is housing, because, without a safe, affordable place to live, nothing else works for people. More than 3,100 Canberrans are languishing on the waiting list for public housing. That's not a waiting list; it's a warning sign. And, if we're not treating housing as a human right, what kind of society are we building? When it comes to urgency, you just have to look at the CSIRO Ginninderra site. This is well located, previously used land that has been sitting idle for a decade. We heard so much about federal and territory Labor working together on these sorts of issues, and, after three years, nothing. It's time to get on with this and other projects to make housing more affordable.

Just as urgent as the need for shelter is the need for a liveable planet. We're part of nature. We cannot lose sight of that. We are part of nature, and, if nature goes down, we are going down with her. The very first act of the Albanese government was to approve the expansion of the biggest fossil-fuel project in this country. Had they taken that to the election, in places like Bean, where they won by 350 votes, this could have been a very different story. We need better from our elected representatives.

The parliament has an opportunity to deliver reform that measures up to the scale of the crisis. Just look at what's happening in South Australia. We can start with an ambitious 75 per cent floor on our 2035 emissions reduction target, and Canberrans know that climate action is good economics. In all of this is an opportunity when it comes to electrification and the democratisation of an energy system, to actually make it work for households, to save thousands of dollars every year if we get it right. What we need is political courage. There are the numbers in this parliament to do exactly that.

On health, Canberrans have very high hopes from the very welcome announcements from the Labor government about affordable and accessible health care. We have the lowest bulk-billing rate in the country. It's cheaper to drive to Goulburn to get an MRI if you live in the ACT. That's disgraceful, and this parliament is the opportunity to fix that. The promised nine out of ten GP visits to be bulk-billed has to apply to people living in the ACT.

Good health depends on good government, and Canberrans know the value of our democracy, but when we have whistleblowers like Richard Boyle being prosecuted and the NAC failing to hold one single public hearing, public confidence is eroded. We have to get on with the job of establishing a whistleblower protection authority and reforming the NAC so that there is confidence in our institutions. Canberrans also deserve fair representation in this chamber. Territory rights should be protected, and additional senators for the territories should be part of Labor's agenda this term.

Gambling advertising is where community good butts up against vested interests. Almost two years from the landmark Murphy report, silence. That's not good enough from a Labor government that has such a whopping majority. Use your political capital for something. Leave a legacy when it comes to gambling advertising in this country, where you have more people under the age of 18 betting than playing basketball. That's the country we live in. Let's change that.

On AI, we've got to be clear-eyed about productivity gains but also the real risks to jobs, privacy and democracy. We have an opportunity to harness the potential of AI, but we have to safeguard against these risks. These are all things that this government can and should do, and at every turn I will be pushing the government for more ambition and putting forward good ideas from the people I represent.

Former senator Bilyk has left the chamber now, but I too wanted to associate myself with the beautiful words of Senator Carol Brown earlier in this session regarding Senator Bilyk's contribution and place on record my thanks to Senator Bilyk for her support and friendship in the 12 months since I started in this place, and also for her friendship and support prior to that when we worked together as proud members of the Australian Services Union.

I rise today, though, to also highlight the importance of the Albanese government's commitment to ensuring Australians receive the full amount of superannuation that they are rightfully owed to ensure a dignified and secure retirement. From 1 July 2026 compulsory super must be paid on the same day as wages being paid, known as payday super. This might seem like a really small change, but the positive impact that payday super will have on the retirement income of millions of Australians cannot be understated.

You don't need a background in superannuation policy to understand the benefits of paying super on payday. Really simply, it means more money with more compound interest being accumulated in your account sooner. Modelling commissioned by Industry Super Australia shows that a 30-year-old on an average salary will be $8,000 better off when they retire when their super is paid fortnightly instead of quarterly. The increase in compound interest would benefit at least an additional 27 per cent of all employees. That is a significant number. But no doubt the biggest impact that payday super will have is on the scourge of underpayment of superannuation—and it is a scourge. Whilst most employers do play by the rules, the Australian Taxation Office estimates that in 2019-20 employees were owed but not paid $3.4 billion worth of superannuation. That is $3.4 billion that didn't make it into the pockets of Australians to grow their retirement savings but was owed to them.

Paying super on payday will also address many of the causes of unpaid super. It will streamline the processes for businesses, reducing the likelihood of error and minimising the administrative burden. It will also make super contributions, or lack thereof, much more visible to employees, and this is important. We know that workers who are paid superannuation quarterly are less likely to notice that they have been underpaid, and it makes sense—life gets busy. I challenge everyone who might be listening today to think about the last time that you checked your contributions on your statement.

While we often talk about the gender pay gap, much less is made of the gender super gap, but this is just as troubling. Currently women retire with a third less super than men. Simply because women have less super, it is women who are disadvantaged the most from unpaid and delayed super payments. Over the last seven years women have been underpaid a whopping $10.8 billion of superannuation. I want to repeat that figure: $10.8 billion. It is staggering that over the last seven years Australian women earned but were denied retirement savings.

It probably doesn't come as a surprise that the picture is worse for women who are both young and on lower incomes. In 2019-20, 41 per cent of all young women who earned less than $25,000 a year were underpaid superannuation. Payday super will help rectify this gross gender super imbalance. It is a simple reform that will have an immediate effect. With employers no longer being able to hide their underpayments using infrequency as a deflection, better compliance could see as much as an additional $300 million in super contributions to women over the next four years.

Our current system of quarterly super payments is nothing more than a hangover from the olden days of analog bookkeeping. This change is bringing workplaces and superannuation into the 21st century. Electronic payroll methods mean that paying super with wages rarely involves any extra work for businesses. In fact, it will save businesses the hassle of the time-consuming quarterly reconciliations and mitigate the risks of getting stuck with hefty unpaid super liabilities. It is a win that should be celebrated, and I'm proud to be a part of a government that is delivering Australians a more dignified retirement.

Many of you would be aware of the mattress run I do up to the Kimberley region in Western Australia with my partners from Centurion Transport, Bedshed Midland, Bedshed Osborne Park and, of course, my old mate Nick D'Adamo from Keys—The Moving Solution. Bedshed has a 60-night comfort guarantee, which allows customers to return their mattress if it wasn't what they were looking for. The mattresses returned via this guarantee—some have only been slept on for one night; some may have been slept on for 59 nights—can't be sold again, so my very, very dear friend Don Bantock from Bedshed, over the last four years, has donated those mattresses, free of charge, so they can go to people in need in the Kimberley. My great mate Justin Cardaci from Centurion Transport donates a prime mover, three trailers, a couple of dollies and a fuel card to me and my team—I'm assisted by my old mate Nick D'Adamo and his crew from Keys, as I said, to load the mattresses with Don's crew—and then I drive the mattresses up to the Kimberley. Since we started this project in 2021, over a thousand mattresses have been donated and delivered to families in need across the Kimberley region.

On my recent trip, just a couple of weeks ago, we delivered a further 164 mattresses to associations including Emama Nguda Aboriginal Corporation, Ngunga Group Womens Aboriginal Corporation in Derby, Ngaringga Nguraa women's safe house, the community projects arm of Job Pathways in Halls Creek and Ngnowar-Aerwah Aboriginal Corporation, with assistance from the Wyndham Youth Aboriginal Corporation and Job Pathways in Wyndham. I'd like to thank all of the community leaders who are involved in supporting this important community project, including the teams who helped us unload at each stop and those involved in making sure the mattresses got to who desperately needed them. I was also pleased to learn that the crew at the Ngnowar-Aerwah Aboriginal Corporation in Wyndham, under the fine leadership of CEO Elaine McLean, had already identified homes for most of the mattresses to be delivered to based on hardship, need and women fleeing domestic violence situations—which, sadly, is way too many in that part of Australia.

One of the more touching moments was when we got to meet Fiona and Edna in Wyndham. Now, I'll paint the picture for you. Fiona was not far off my age, so you can imagine her mother, Edna, would have been close to, if not well into, her 80s. As the boys pulled up out the front with the mattresses that we'd just unloaded from the back of the Centurion trailers, I said I'd like to go and meet with Edna and Fiona. I was joined on that run by my partners in this, Don Bantock, as I've said, and Carl Cardaci, the founder of Centurion Transport, who had come up as well—as they do many times—to help with the unloading and the distribution and to see where their generosity goes. And I can tell you: when I said to Edna, 'Edna, when was the last time you had a new mattress?' she started crying; she teared up. And I tell you what: this crusty old truckie got a little bit watery too when she said to me, 'I've never had a bed.' It's 2025, and she'd never had a bed. And her daughter Fiona said, 'Glenn, none of us have had a bed.' I said, 'What do you sleep on?' She said, 'We had a piece of foam that we used to share'—and in Aboriginal culture, they do share; they all sleep together, with the grandkids.

So you had to be there to believe it, to see the faces of these people when they are given a king-sized mattress and they think that, for the first time in their lives, they get to do what we expect to do every day. They don't get a bed under it; they just have a mattress on the floor. And it was so moving for me, having done this for so long, and for my partners to actually see that and to meet them. Yet it's from something as simple as saving a mattress from going to the tip because it couldn't be sold again, even though it may have been slept on for only one night or up to 59 nights. I tell you what: if that doesn't move you, nothing will.

I just want to send out once again a sincere, heartfelt, thank you so much, Don, for what you do with me in helping me to do this in the Kimberley. Thank you so much, Justin Cardaci and Carl Cardaci from Centurion Transport. You make a world of difference. And they never whinge about the cost. They can't wait to do it. We do this twice a year. And if we can do that one little bit in the Kimberley, it darn well ain't closing the gap but, by crikey, it leaves a very warm feeling in your heart. So thank you, guys, and I continue to look forward to the next run at the end of this year.

We live in an increasingly fractured, polarised world, where principles and values we once took for granted in Australia are being undermined. Today, the Albanese Labor government gets away with doing things that would simply not have been acceptable in Australia a generation or two ago.

Labor may have won the 2022 election and the 2025 election with only approximately 35 per cent of the primary vote, but that hasn't made the problems Labor created go away. We still have a cost-of-living crisis, we still have a housing crisis, we still have record immigration and we have increasing debt, huge budget deficits and declining economic productivity. The Prime Minister's so-called productivity roundtable, of his sycophants, won't change things at all unless it includes people who understand productivity and business—people like Gina Rinehart, Solomon Lew, Gerry Harvey and Dick Smith. Taxpayers are still forced to foot the bill for subsidising renewable projects in the pursuit of net zero, coupled with rises in our electricity bills of more than 300 per cent over the past 20 years or so.

More recently, Labor has gambled with our national security. For decades, Australia's defence has mainly been funded by American taxpayers. America's nuclear deterrence has prevented global war between major powers. America supplies us with our military platforms and our advanced weapons. Under AUKUS, America will hand over to Australia the most closely-guarded military technology on the planet, nuclear propulsion. Yet our current Labor government is publicly appearing less than grateful for this generous support from the arsenal of democracy. Labor is ghosting our most important ally, the United States, and, to all appearances, is sucking up to Communist China, Australia's most potent adversary. China routinely commits acts of aggression against Australia as if it's entitled to do so, and it is not hiding its intentions to militarily and economically dominate our region.

America simply wants the countries with which it shares close alliances and democratic values to step up and do some of the heavy lifting by increasing their defence spending. It's called growing a backbone and taking responsibility to defend yourself instead of relying on Americans to fund your battles with their money and lives. The Prime Minister is gambling that he won't have to, and that is a big mistake. It's a purely political mistake based on arrogance. It's not principled. Labor hates everything about Trump and the Republicans. Labor has failed to appreciate the importance of America to our security, and that our relationship with the world's most powerful nation must endure beyond the current occupants of the Lodge and the White House.

It's impossible to imagine Bob Hawke, Labor's most successful and longest-serving prime minister, supporting this. He was a noted champion of the US alliance, despite the very conservative Reagan and Bush administrations being in the White House. Hawke was also a vocal critic of communist China, especially after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Hawke understood Australian principles. Prime Minister Albanese never got the memo, and now our relations with America are declining when we can least afford it. This is not in our best interests.

Australia needs a statement of binding principles to govern how we conduct ourselves on the world stage and to ensure that petty politics don't risk important international relationships that must last well beyond every three-year parliamentary term. This statement needs to say who we are, what Australia stands for and who we stand with: democracies like the US and Israel, not communist dictatorships or terrorist regimes. We stand for the rule of law, self-determination and freedom, and an international peace and order reinforced by a strong military to deter those who, like China, would disrupt that peace and order.

This morning I announced that Australia's Voice will be pushing the government to pursue click-to-cancel, a legislative change that would provide a positive impact for consumers across Australia. Do you ever sign up for a free trial and then forget about it, only to be reminded when the trial ends and the first bill arrives? When you sign up for something, they make it impossible to cancel. What if these companies were required to make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up, and to provide reminders before they charge you at the end of a free trial? That's what click-to-cancel is all about—putting you, the consumer, back in control.

Last year the government announced a consultation on this topic, but since then the only thing that has happened is the minister retiring. I've written to the new minister to act on the findings of the consultation and legislate a ban to ensure that subscription traps and similar trading practices affecting millions of Aussies out there are banned. There has been an overwhelming amount of support since the launch of the petition about an hour ago, with over 100 people signing it and sharing these comments: 'It's bloody hard to cancel anything. I can't explain how much I wished and waited for anything like this. Thank you. This is sorely needed. Good on you. It's very annoying not being able to unsubscribe. I got locked into a subscription. They made it very difficult to back out, but I got there. Great initiative.' I've heard from time-poor mums and dads who have no idea what games and apps their children are downloading on their phones until they see the transaction on their bank statement.

Speaking of mothers, I want to reflect on the strength of women and my greatest role model, my mum. When I was 22 my dad passed away from cancer. Just like that, everything changed. My mum, a migrant woman, lost the love of her life, and was left to raise and provide for me and my three younger siblings all by herself. Despite the odds, and against the heartbreak, she drew on the strength that only a mother has. To provide for her children, she started her own business. She became a driving instructor, teaching other migrant women how to drive. She worked constantly, teaching during the day and cleaning and cooking at night. She made sure we ate well, that we studied and that we stayed true to our faith and our values. I was the eldest, so I stepped up: I packed the school lunches, I helped with homework and I paid the bills while I studied pharmacy at uni and worked at a pizza shop. But, really, it was all mum. She sacrificed everything—her time, her health, her mental health—but she did it. She raised a family she can be proud of: my sister, a pharmacist with her own little four-year-old son; my two brothers, both respected engineers in their own rights; and me, a proud senator for WA.

I don't know how she did it, but she did, because it's just what mothers do. But after years in the car, on her feet, carrying the weight of her family, raising four children, she feels it. Her back hurts. Her shoulders hurt. These are the sorts of injuries we hear about in our sports stars and our tradies, but our mothers feel it too. This country runs on the unpaid labour of women, yet we barely ever acknowledge it. That's why I am here—because no woman should retire into poverty after a lifetime of sacrifice. No mother should suffer in silence with a broken body and no support. I'm in politics because I want women like my mum to be seen and applauded, to be respected for their strength and to be supported with real, lasting change. We must close the gender pay gap, tackle family and domestic violence, and increase access to specialist support for women's health. This is the least that women deserve. Some people say to do all this is impossible. To them, I say, 'Every single day I woke up and saw my mum do the impossible.' I want to be like my mum, and I want to do the impossible.

It brings me a great deal of pleasure to say a few words at this tail end of senators' statements, because Senator Catryna Bilyk joined us earlier today, and wonderful words were said by Senator Carol Brown about a great person who has been dedicated to her community, to giving a voice to people who don't have a voice, and to speaking out when it is not always fashionable. I also had the luck of sitting next to Senator Bilyk for a large period of my time in the Senate, so I heard a lot of that firsthand. She would never stay quiet if she thought I was on the wrong track. She would never stay quiet if she thought somebody else was on the wrong track, because she always felt it was really important to make sure that there was a clear expression of views—it was an opportunity to represent the people she spent a life representing.

Looking back on her wonderful career as an early childhood educator, we see that she was an industrial officer for the Australian Services Union—she came through the early childhood area to take up that role. She was an advocate who also took up the role of adviser to the Tasmanian Labor members David Crean, Ken Bacon, and David Llewellyn. She was also National Vice President of the Australia Labor Party. All those roles demonstrate and mould a person—actually, I think she moulded those roles rather than the roles moulding her. One thing about Catryna, and all of us here who have had the pleasure of dealing with Catryna on personal, professional and senatorial levels know, is that she is a person who reaches out, attempting—and achieving—to get people listening to her particular view as expressed from her life experience.

As a researcher, a representative, an advocate for people in various roles in community services, and a member of a number of committees right across the Senate, Catryna has cross-examined a large number of people—she has cross-examined me a few times, sitting not so quietly next to me in the Senate here—right across the community spectrum, making sure that she got to the heart of what needed to be done and what needed to be heard, making sure the facts were brought out and the accountability was there for all to see. Senator Bilyk is a great example of those hardworking, dedicated and determined Senate individuals that have made such a difference to so many of us. Thank you, mate. You've made a difference for me as well.

I will now proceed to two-minute statements.

I rise to indicate that I intend to introduce a private senator's bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act by removing references to gender identity and restoring the act to its original purpose. In 2013, the Gillard government introduced gender identity as a protected attribute under the act. This changed the intent of the act, creating a situation where the safety, privacy and opportunities of women are now challenged pursuant to the very law that was designed to protect them.

Sex is not a social construct. It's a core biological reality that underpins human nature and the protections the act was meant to provide. The 2013 amendment made discrimination based on one's appearance or mannerisms with reference to gender identity an offence. It is this approach that has led to outcomes which, one suspects, were not properly considered at the time of the 2013 amendment.

If we really care about those who are suffering from gender dysphoria, we should be speaking this truth, not amplifying the issue. The confusion, it must be said, needs to end. My bill would remove the references to gender identity and restore the act's clear definitions of 'man' and 'woman' as members of the male and female sexes, respectively, ensuring that the act once again protects women, upholds fairness and respects the truth.

I rise today with deep sadness to pay tribute to a very special man. It was with great sadness and heavy hearts that, some months ago, we farewelled John Phillip Oliver, husband to Geraldine; father and father-in-law to Natalie and Adrin, Madelaine, Dearne and Drew; grandfather to Casey, Elysa, Millan and Keely; and longtime Labor Party stalwart.

John was a loving husband to the now late Geraldine. They have been reunited. He was a devoted father and doting grandfather. Hardworking, he was involved in the agriculture sector. My thoughts, and my branch's thoughts, go out to his family.

He was a man who was salt of the earth, as they say. He could turn his hand to anything. His work ethic was truly inspirational to me and to everyone else. He was working, still, in his 80s. John imparted his wisdom and knowledge of just about every subject to his family and to our branch members on a regular basis. His knowledge of Tasmanian history was extraordinary. He used to read newspapers from front to back, and there were certain newspapers he said he had to read because he wanted to know what those of the opposite political persuasion, the tories, were writing, just so he could rebut them.

He was a regular caller to talkback radio and wrote letters to the editor, but John's service was one of believing in giving people a helping hand. He was a true believer, and he was a man who was such an inspiration to his family and to all of those who knew him. My thoughts and prayers are with his family at this time of loss. He has left an indelible mark not only on me but on everyone who came into contact with him. Vale, John Oliver—reunited with his loving wife, Geraldine.

This is my first speech for the new 48th Parliament. I was reflecting on the first order of business for this government in the 47th Parliament, and my first reflections were on the setting of a climate target after more than ten years of coalition inaction on climate. I reflected on the fact that we, the Greens party, supported the government to legislate a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030.

We knew this was inadequate. We knew it was less than our Paris agreements, but the community out there were so desperate to get some kind of action in this place on climate that we worked cooperatively and constructively with the government to pass that legislation. But there was a very explicit agreement that this would be the beginning of ambition on climate and emissions reductions and that the government would raise that ambition. Well, the time is now for a new set of climate targets. Indeed, under our Paris protocols, we were supposed to have provided these by February 2025. Because of the election, that has been delayed.

The Greens are calling on the government to implement the strongest possible climate targets. We have seen the Climate Council say we need a 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2035. We have seen the Queensland state government—a Labor government—come out with a target for 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035. This is a critical decision for our nation. We worked constructively with the government in the previous parliament to get the ball rolling. Now is the time to up our ambition before, hopefully, a COP in this country next year where we can show the world that we have actually legislated emissions reductions in line with the science that tells us we need to limit warming to 1½ degrees to have a habitable planet for future generations. Nothing could be more important than new climate targets. (Time expired)

Today, we learned that more than half of voters now rely on the government as their primary source of income, whether through public sector wages, welfare payments or subsidies. That's a pretty incredible figure. Total government spending has surged to its highest levels since the Second World War and it's now at almost 40 per cent of GDP. Treasury's own advice is very clear—it's unequivocal, actually: the federal budget can't be sustained without higher taxes and spending cuts. That advice was never meant to see the light of day. It was released in error, and then the Treasury tried to delete it. But the message is unmistakable: 'Your money is running out.' And the government knows it.

And what was the Treasurer's response to this leak? He was 'pretty relaxed about it'. That's what he said—'relaxed', despite warnings that interest payments on public debt will rise by nearly 10 per cent each year; 'relaxed', while everyday Australians are the ones left to carry the cost of this complacency.

The Treasurer shouldn't be relaxed, because what Labor won't say but Treasury makes pretty clear is that your taxes are going to be going up. This government is wargaming new taxes whilst quietly conceding that their housing targets are unachievable. And who pays the price for that? We all do. Working families do; small businesses do. But, mostly, young Australians pay the price for that—young Australians who have done everything right but, no matter what they do, can't afford to get ahead.

I would say Labor's words are cheap, but they are proving to be very expensive. This government can't fix the budget without taxing more and delivering less. They have started that by their tax on unrealised capital gains—the first step in their mission to tax you more. Australians deserve transparency and a responsible government that respects your hard work.

I rise to provide a heartfelt thanks to the people of South Australia for returning me to this place and for electing a Labor government—a Labor government that will deliver on all of our promises. When they were voting, South Australians knew what was at stake. They knew that there were two very distinct options here and they chose hope, opportunity and kindness and they rejected some of the more hateful opportunities that were being put forward during the election.

Through the course of the election, I had the delight of meeting with so many people from all over South Australia—from Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Burra, Two Wells, Mount Barker and Mount Gambier, and from everywhere in between. I just want to thank all of the people who came out and spoke to me, and all of the people who opened their doors and were prepared to have a conversation. I really, really appreciate that.

Our campaign was driven by your views and our work in government will equally be driven by your views, your concerns and your anxieties. We will seek to represent everyone across the country, and I will stand here representing the people of South Australia. I'm thrilled that we have a larger South Australian caucus. We have more excellent Labor members representing the good people of South Australia and we will all work hard to repay the trust that you've placed in us by electing us to this place.

Acknowledgements of and welcomes to country may have started with good intentions. Like so many good ideas, however, they've been pushed far beyond their original scope and have become tools of division. Disguised as innocent and harmless formalities, acknowledgements and welcomes to country are now part of the radical left's progressive agenda to divide Australians. In acknowledging only one group in this way, all other Australians are excluded.

Australians expressed a comprehensive rejection of civic, political and racial division in the failed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum. It is now incumbent on the parliament to act in accordance with the will of the Australian people. Australians, whether born here or born elsewhere, neither need nor want to be welcomed to their own country. These are exercises in virtue signalling and they keep disunity alive. Senator Pauline Hanson has shown great principle in politely declining to attend welcome to country ceremonies and in turning her back on such ceremonies. Her stance reflects an increasingly popular sentiment.

The practice of welcome to country was invented in the 1970s. It and associated statements have become weapons in a culture war that seeks to divide Australia. They imply the Australian nation is illegitimate. Australians are sick of these divisive culture wars from the radical left.

The Western tradition has given us and the world the highest levels of human flourishing in history. This is based on our Judaeo-Christian beginnings, representative democracy, the separation of church and state, free-market economics, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement and freedom of association. Our challenge now is to unite behind our foundational Western values and traditions and to abandon the hollow and divisive acknowledgements of and welcomes to country. (Time expired)

The idea of paying a fee in order to spend your own money sounds like a bizarre one. The notion that someone who's taking a payment from you will also then be able to charge you for taking that payment sounds like something that should belong in a Kafka novel, not in real life, but that is what's happening in Australia with card surcharges on transactions. What started off as a small number of transactions that were performed electronically each year has grown to large volumes, and these days about three-quarters of all transactions, online and in real life, are paid for with a card. Increasingly, we see the practice of merchants or businesses charging you a fee for using your card—that is, charging you a fee for accepting your own payment.

We would never accept this with cash—the idea that you would go into a business and offer to pay them cash and they would charge you a cash management fee or a cash-processing fee. Most of us would walk out and say, 'That's ridiculous.' But, increasingly, it has become normalised in the card sector, and we see more and more merchants adding surcharges in a way that's often not transparent and often not visible. I point out here that the cost of managing cash in an economy is at least double that of managing electronic transactions, because you need to physically move the cash from the place of sale to the banking venue and whatnot.

That's why I want to commend the work that the Reserve Bank of Australia has done in looking at this issue through, now, two discussion papers and commend their outlined proposals to address it to help lower wholesale fees in the system so merchants are not forced to recoup them from consumers, to increase transparency around the fees that are paid and to give merchants and consumers better choice. The idea that you should be paying for the privilege of spending your own money is preposterous, and I'm glad the Reserve Bank is looking into this.

While members of the opposition spent the first week of the 48th Parliament attempting to reprosecute the climate wars of the last few decades, our No. 1 focus as a government continues to be delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians. Our first piece of legislation introduced in the parliament this week will slash student debt by 20 per cent, cutting the average debt of more than three million Australians.

Of course, this builds on the other work we've undertaken to help Australians with the cost of living, including the measures that rolled out on 1 July this year, like a $1.8 billion boost in funding for hospitals and like new menopause and perimenopause health assessments to be available under Medicare. We've invested in longer consultation times and higher rebates for complex gynaecological care for women. We've added two weeks of paid parental leave to the government scheme, and we're adding superannuation to it as well. We've increased the superannuation guarantee and extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off for another year. We've invested in $150 of energy bill relief for every household, and we are providing 30 per cent off home batteries for solar, because we know these measures help not only with the cost of living but with the climate challenges we face. We've supported a 3½ per cent pay rise for all minimum and award wage workers and are investing in paid pracs for nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students. Tradies who are apprenticed in residential construction are receiving $10,000 in bonus payments.

We as a government are focused on Australian families. We're focused on building Australia's future. We're focused on helping with the cost of living. The opposition seem to have learned nothing and have returned to this place this week focused only on themselves.

The details that have come out in the last 24 hours of what's happening in the Northern Territory's watch house in the Palmerston Police Station are utterly chilling. Sixteen people in a single cell is not an unpleasant story; it's deeply unsafe and a code for violence. These are the kinds of conditions that people die in. Women's cells are horrifically crowded and stained with period blood. The reports include that of a woman who was a domestic violence victim who was wrongly identified and held as a perpetrator for five days in the police watch house in Palmerston. That was a woman who had been brought to the attention of police because she had been beaten severely and threatened with rape, and then she was locked up for five days in a Palmerston watch house. On top of that, 11-year-old girls are being held in these appalling conditions. These are kids, girls who should be in year 5 at school, held in these hell-like conditions in the Northern Territory Police Force watch house.

It is appalling that the Northern Territory's response to this human rights abuse is to build more prisons and more prison cells. The Northern Territory government is punching down and blaming vulnerable people for broken social and health systems, jailing women and kids in these most appalling conditions. While this news has broken in the last 24 hours, we have known about it for months and years. We need more than symbolism from this government and acknowledgements of country, as important as they are. It must be the job of the federal government, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General to make sure 11-year-old girls are not held in these hell-like conditions in the Palmerston Police Station. We must step up.

This government has betrayed our nation. How? By refusing to reject the WHO's international health regulations amendments just last week. In doing so, what have they done? They have jeopardised our sovereignty, ceding key decisions for our nation to unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracies—namely, the WHO—who have no allegiance to the Australian people whatsoever. These amendments that have just passed grant the WHO sweeping authority to dictate our national response to so-called health emergencies. Lockdowns, border closures, travel bans, forced masking, fast-tracked injections—whatever the WHO declares, we are expected to obey. That is not democracy; that's dictatorship wrapped in a white coat. That's what it is. After everything that we Australians went through during the botched COVID response, why on earth would we hand over more power to such a foreign body?

Robert F Kennedy Jr has warned that these changes lay the foundation for a global medical surveillance regime. That is not speculation; it's spelled out in the text. Yet this government has signed us up without consultation, without debate and without consent. Is it shocking? Not really. North Korea—yes, North Korea—sits on the WHO's executive board. It's no wonder that the US has just rejected the amendments outright. So why is Australia so eager to be controlled? Why? It's time to keep our country safe, and we don't need Geneva to tell us what to do. We can do it ourselves. (Time expired)

I rise in this new parliament not just as a senator but as a former teacher and educator. I rise proud to be part of a political movement that places education for all at the heart of our national project. It's not just policy; it's principle. As the daughter of Irish immigrants, it was education that opened the door of opportunity in my life. That was an opportunity that brought me to this place and to be the first in my family to attend university.

In our last term, we made TAFE free for 600,000 Australians. We made early education cheaper by guaranteeing three days of subsidised child care and introduced paid prac. In 2011, when I sat in the other chamber, the Gonski review outlined the urgent need for fair and transparent school funding. Labor acted on those recommendations and, when those opposite took government, those reforms were reversed. For nine long years, Australia went backwards. We fell behind the rest of the world.

I am now very proud to say, as a teacher and as a Labor woman, that we have committed to fully funding all public schools—because every Australian child, no matter their background, no matter where they live, deserves access to a quality education. That work will bear fruit for our children and, through them, for our nation.

Today, my colleagues in the House have introduced legislation to cut all student debt by 20 per cent. When that legislation reaches this chamber, I will proudly vote for it, because that is what Labor does. We back students. We back teachers. We will build a fairer future for all Australians. We said we were going to cut HECS by 20 per cent. Today, we fulfilled that promise by bringing that legislation to the parliament. We are getting on with the job of governing for all Australians.

Victoria has always been a proud, progressive state, shaped by strong communities and a deep commitment to fairness and equity. It's a real honour to represent it in this place and to work for better outcomes for First Nations people right across our great state. Earlier this month I had the chance to spend time with some of the people who have been making a difference for decades. I visited ACES, the Aboriginal Community Elders Services, in East Brunswick, alongside my colleague the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Sam Rae. Congratulations to Sam on his new appointment.

ACES is more than just a service; it's a community built around culture, care and a deep respect for elders. As an Aboriginal community controlled organisation, ACES is governed by a board elected by the local community, ensuring that the voices of elders not only are heard but drive decisions that shape their care. We know when we centre the voices of those seeking care we get better outcomes—services that are safer, stronger and more culturally grounded. It is not rocket science. ACES's reputation across the Aboriginal community and aged-care sector has been earned through genuine care and cultural understanding and an unwavering commitment to quality. It's a place where mob can age strong, surrounded by community, and a place that reflects who they are and where they come from.

ACES is one of just two services in Victoria delivering aged care that is truly led by mob. Demand is rising because it works—better care, better health and better outcomes for mob. But growth brings pressure, and caring for elders who have borne the brunt of systemic racism can't fall on community alone. Government must do more. (Time expired)

Yesterday the ABC reported that the University of Technology Sydney spent $140,000 on an alumni trip to the United States. The vice-chancellor who joined this trip earned over $900,000 in 2023 alone. This comes at a time when institutions like UTS and ANU are undergoing intense cuts. The salaries and expenses of university leadership—about $1 million a year—are an insult both to staff losing their jobs and to students paying thousands of dollars for a degree, only to receive recycled lectures recorded years ago. For students who have attended university since COVID, this is all too familiar: pre-recorded content, minimal engagement and escalating fees. I've received far too many horror stories from students, tutors and lecturers in Western Australia. No wonder our global university rankings are in decline, with over 70 per cent of our tertiary institutions impacted. For the tutors and lecturers who aren't let go, many are forced to work unpaid hours, and others are fighting just to be paid for the work they've done. It's a far cry from the university experience of some people in this place, where you would not only get live lectures every time but it was for free.

The government's plan to cut HECS debts by 20 per cent is not a bad move, but it is a bandaid that fails to address the problems affecting the entire industry, which have turned places of learning into degree factories. The people who should be the focus of the university sector's investment are the students and teachers, not the leadership.

I rise today to speak on the great Western Australian gas industry—in particular, the North West Shelf project. The life-cycle extension of the North West Shelf is an absolute no-brainer. It is a great shame on this Labor government that, when given the opportunity to make a rapid decision, they chose, for political reasons, to kick the can down the road, to delay it past the election. In sum total now, the approval of a life-cycle extension—not a new project; a life-cycle extension—has taken years under state and federal Labor governments.

This project was always going to be extended, not merely for economic reasons—though they are very important—but also for geostrategic reasons. This is an essential supply to key strategic partners, like Japan and South Korea. The North West Shelf project is a key part of the Western Australian economy. That doesn't just benefit my home state of Western Australia but actually benefits all of us. For example, one of the key players in the North West Shelf, Woodside, a great Western Australian success story, alone paid $5 billion in taxes and levies in 2023 alone. The North West Shelf project has returned over $40 billion in royalties and excise since 1984. As we heard in this place today, that is longer than many new entrants to this place have been alive—sadly not me! This is a generational project essential to Western Australia's energy suppliers and essential for international security.

This week is National Farm Safety Week. Every year, and especially this year, National Farm Safety Week is an important and timely reminder of the everyday dangers out there for farmers and workers on Australian farms. Last year alone, 72 people lost their lives and 133 people were seriously injured in on-farm incidents. These are not just abstract numbers; they represent someone's parent, partner, child or loved one who never came home or whose life may never be the same.

Agriculture continues to be one of the most dangerous industries to work in. While the sector only represents a small proportion of the workforce, it has the highest rate of workforce fatalities per worker compared to any other industry in Australia. That's why I want to recognise the work of Farmsafe Australia for putting together this year's Farm Safety Week campaign. This year's theme is 'Second Chances—Who Knows How Many You'll Get?' The campaign encourages farmers and farm workers to stop and think about the near misses that happen every day, because it's those same near misses that could have ended very differently. We know that fatigue, familiarity, time constraints and the demands of the job can all contribute to accidents on a farm. That's why this campaign is a reminder to farmers and farm workers to stay vigilant and prioritise their safety.

Our government is committed to bringing the number of farm accidents and fatalities on Australian farms down to zero. That's why we have committed an additional $2.5 million over three years to Farmsafe Australia through the National Farm Safety Education Fund. I met Farmsafe Australia's chair, Felicity Richards, at her own farm in Launceston last year. I acknowledge the incredible work that Felicity and her team do to improve safety on Australian farms. All workers deserve to come home safe, no matter what their workplace and the industry that they're involved with.

We will move to the first question time of the 48th Parliament.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the Albanese government rule out any new or increased taxes on Australian taxpayers or businesses in this term of parliament?

I thank the honourable senator, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, for the first question in this place of the 48th Parliament. I'm very pleased to receive it. What I would observe is that it does demonstrate that the coalition haven't listened and haven't learnt—they haven't listened to the message of the Australian people and haven't learnt from the message that was sent to them at the last election that the negativity, scare campaigns and obstruction from those opposite didn't get a great response in the Australian community. I would have hoped—

President, a point of order in relation to relevance. It's very obvious: the answer to the question is you're not going to rule it out and there are going to be more taxes. I would ask you to draw the minister to the question.

Senator Cash, I remind the Senate—we all might be a bit rusty. I accept your point of order, but there's no need to go into what was a response. I believe Senator Wong was getting to the point, but I will remind her again of the question.

Senator Cash, you would know that our economic plan—and I would say it is a very early point to take an interjection.

At 40 seconds.

Yes, I know you're very keen to have a fight; we're very keen to govern. We're very keen to pass legislation that matters to the Australian people. You can keep wanting to have a fight; we're going to deliver the agenda we were elected to deliver. Our economic plan is about Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That is what our economic plan is about.

Of course, there are those who are open to tax changes, including capital gains tax. I was interested to read the member for Groom's comments today. I think there are some real issues we need to address. I am open to a discussion on CGT—

I'm surprised you are interrupting me, Senator Cash.

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?

For the second time today in relation to the first question of the 48th Parliament, I hope this is not going to be how Senator Wong treats us. It is a point of order on relevance. The senator is not being relevant.

Thank you, Senator Cash. Minister Wong is being relevant to the question, and I will ask her to continue.

Talking about capital gains tax, which Senator Cash used to be very interested in—I am also observing the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate's approach for the 48th Parliament appears to be to give lectures during points of order, but, obviously, it is a matter for you, President, how much leniency you will show to that.

I make the point that there are those in this place who are open to a discussion on capital gains tax, and certainly Mr Hamilton, the member for Groom, is one of them. I do wonder if you have raised your concerns with him. (Time expired)

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

Will the Albanese government confirm that there will be no changes to negative gearing arrangements during this term of parliament?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Those on my right! Senator Wong, I have called you to answer the question. I think we've got order now, so you can go to the first supplementary.

Those of us on this side are wondering if they have updated their question time packs since the last term, because I think I had many of these questions, almost precisely in the same form, in the last parliament. As I said—haven't learnt, haven't listened, same old opposition, same old Liberal Party. We haven't changed our tax policy. As you know, we do have a housing policy. It is very detailed. It includes both demand and supply measures, and it doesn't include those measures, but I am interested in the conversation that the member for Groom appears to have started.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I am waiting particularly for senators on my right. Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Will the minister confirm that Western Australia will continue to receive a guaranteed level of no less than 75c in the dollar for GST funding, and there will be no changes to this arrangement?

I think we have made our position on Western Australian GST very clear. During the election, the Prime Minister said so in Western Australia many times. I would note, Senator, that you might recall the former Leader of the Opposition was the person who was questioning those tax arrangements.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In May, the Albanese Labor government took a positive agenda to the election, and the Australian people voted to re-elect the government with an increased majority. How will the government continue to build Australia's future?

Senator Mulholland, thank you for that question. I acknowledge your first question, which, as the opposition knows, is obviously not your first speech. I'm very pleased to get a question from you, because it goes really to the issues about why we are here. We are here as a re-elected government, and we face this, the 48th Parliament, with great humility but an even greater sense of purpose.

We were entrusted on 3 May with a great opportunity, and that opportunity was to continue to build our country's future, to continue the work of making Australia a fairer country where Australians from every background, from every walk of life, have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations. We do live in a time of great uncertainty and challenging strategic circumstances, so it is really important to recognise that, on 3 May, Australians voted for Australian values, for fairness, aspiration, opportunity for all—values that have held us in good stead and that I am confident will continue to do so as we face the challenges to come.

Australians voted for strong, stable democracy and an orderly and sensible government. Australians voted for fair wages and conditions, to strengthen Medicare, to build even more urgent care clinics, to protect our world-leading Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and to continue to seize the opportunities of cleaner, cheaper renewable energy. Australians voted for greater access to education, for fee-free TAFE and more investment in early childhood education. Australians voted for fully funded public schools, 20 per cent off HECS debts and to help people earn more and keep more of what they earn. Australians voted to enable more Australians to build a better future for themselves and for their families.

Senator Mulholland, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government focused on easing cost-of-living pressures in its first term, delivering tax cuts for every Australian, cheaper medicines and energy bill relief amongst other measures. How is the government building on the progress Australians have made over the last three years?

We know the cost of living is front of mind for many Australians, and that's why it has been front and centre in every budget we have delivered. The second-term Albanese Labor government will continue to provide support to Australians under pressure. The very first piece of legislation introduced into this parliament is one to cut student debt by 20 per cent. This will save around three million Australians an average of $5½ thousand each. We are introducing a new $1,000 instant tax deduction. From 1 January, no Australian will pay more than $25 per script for a medicine on the PBS. For pensioners and concession card holders, the price of a script will be frozen at $7.70 until 2030. We are not only providing immediate cost-of-living relief; we are also driving a productivity agenda led by the Treasurer, with a goal to drive economic growth, boost productivity, strengthen the budget and secure the resilience of our economy in uncertain times.

Senator Mulholland, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has always been focused on delivering and governing for all Australians. How is this reflected in the 48th Parliament of Australia?

Thank you, Senator. One of the things that make me most proud to stand with my colleagues from the Australian Labor Party is that we are a government for all Australians. In order to govern for all Australians, it's important that we are a government that reflects modern Australia. We have the youngest person ever elected to the Senate, who gave a great speech today, and she is also the youngest woman ever elected to the Senate.

I've felt so happy and so privileged as I've watched the first speeches to date, particularly in the other place, that I am part of the most diverse parliament and government in the nation's history—a caucus which, once again, has a majority of women and more culturally and ethnically diverse members so we can better reflect our nation as it is. We are a government of all Australians, for all Australians. While some sought to use the heat of a political campaign to sow division and conflict, we will bring people together the Australian way. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised Australians that when they visit the doctor, 'Under Labor, all you will need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.' The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing estimates that 23 per cent of GP clinics will not take up the bulk-billing incentive. Can the minister confirm whether the Prime Minister still stands by his promise that every Australian will need only their Medicare card when they visit the GP?

It's very clear that, during the election, the Australian people voted for the only party that they trust to deliver stronger Medicare, and that is, of course, the party that created Medicare. We are the party that created Medicare and had to do so against the wishes of the coalition. It was built once by a Labor government, torn down by a coalition government and then rebuilt. We know that for many years the Liberals sought to tear it down. Then they changed tactics and pretended that they actually supported it, but we all know what their real agenda is, and we saw it again, for example, in the 2014 budget, when the former leader of the opposition—

Senator Ruston?

On a matter of relevance, I don't believe that the minister is going anywhere near answering the very simple question that I asked in relation to the Prime Minister standing by a promise that he made.

Thank you, Senator Ruston. I will draw Minister Wong to that part of your question.

The Prime Minister made very clear what our position was—that we were expanding, very substantially, on the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive that was put in place in November 2023, the largest investment in bulk billing in history. That's why more than nine in ten visits to the GP were free for people eligible for the incentive. Since we've tripled the investment, we've seen a turnaround in bulk billing, and we have seen bulk billing increase in every state. This was—

Senator Ruston?

Once again, on relevance, I was very clear in my question about the Prime Minister's promise that Australians would need only their Medicare card when they went to the doctor. She has not gone anywhere near addressing that question.

I did draw the minister to your question, and the minister is being relevant to your question.

In relation to the modelling of the program, which I think is really the nub of what you're asking, on page 1 of the media release announcing the policy prior to the election campaign, the modelling shows that three-quarters of practices will be fully bulk billing, and that will take us to nine in ten visits to the GP being bulk billed. That was the clear position that was put out. As I recall, Senator Ruston, you sought to match the policy. Unfortunately, Australians didn't trust you with it.

Senator Ruston, first supplementary?

Once again, the Prime Minister promised Australians during the campaign that, when they went to see the GP, all they would need is their Medicare card, not their credit card. Could the minister please advise how many people in the last quarter had an out-of-pocket cost when they visited their GP?

Senator Ruston, you would know that data is published. You would also know, as I explained in November of 2023, the government has progressively increased the bulk-billing rate and made an additional commitment, in the context of the last budget, in relation to additional bulk-billing incentives. The government's modelling estimates lead us to be confident that nine in 10 GP visits will be free by the end of the decade, which is what the Prime Minister was very clear about during the campaign.

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

Minister, I'd be keen to understand what the average out-of-pocket cost for visiting a GP was in the last 12 months, and can the minister explain her comment in her previous answer that the government 'increased the bulk-billing rate'?

I probably should have used the term 'incentive', if that's what you're referencing, but thank you for picking me up on that. I'm very grateful.

We tripled the bulk-billing incentive and then we extended the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive to more Australians, because we are the party that actually wants to ensure that Medicare is strengthened for Australians. If you have an issue with that, Senator Ruston, that is unfortunate.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

I was wondering whether the minister might come to the question, which is what the average out-of-pocket costs were for Australians.

Thank you. That was part of your question—

Order! Senator Ruston, you've just called a point of order—

Is Medicare still 'unsustainable', Anne?

Senator Watt!—and I'm responding to that point of order. That was part of your question. The minister is being relevant to the whole of your question. Minister Wong, please continue.

Thank you. As I said, the senator would be aware that the government is transparent about those figures. Those figures are released regularly, and the senator spends a lot of time in Senate estimates asking questions about them.

I would also make the point that this is the same senator who described Medicare as 'unsustainable'. We on this side believe that it is important for governments, it is imperative for governments, to continue to invest in bulk-billing, and I'm sorry, Senator Ruston, if you have an issue with that.

My question is to the new Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Peter Dutton promised to approve Woodside's mega gas plant in the Burrup Peninsula within 30 days of the election. Not to be outdone in delivering for major political donor Woodside, the Labor government gave draft approval in just 15 days, conditionally approving a carbon bomb that emits more than all of the coal-fired power stations in Australia all the way out to 2070. Minister, will you cancel the conditional approval?

Thank you, Senator Waters. I congratulate you on your election as Leader of the Australian Greens. I do look forward to you delivering on your commitment to work more constructively with the government in this term. I very much welcome those remarks you made. I assume the Greens heard the message of the last election—that is, being obstructive to progress on environmental matters is not the route to electoral success.

On the question you've asked, Senator Waters, as you say I have made a proposed decision to approve an extension to the existing onshore Karratha gas-processing plant on the Burrup Peninsula, subject to strict conditions. It hasn't suited the Greens' narrative around this topic, but the decision that I was required to make under the act related to the potential impact of that project on the incredible 50,000-year-old Indigenous rock art present on the peninsula.

What I said in the statement I issued on the day of my proposed decision was that the strict conditions that I had applied to the proposed decision are particularly related to air emission levels and their potential impact on the rock art. The Greens have tried to conflate the issue of climate change with this decision, which was about the potential impact of this project on the rock art. The conditions that I have applied to the proposed decision are all geared towards the potential impact of this project on the rock art, and that impact has been central to my decision.

One other thing that the Greens have not wanted to acknowledge as it relates to this project and my proposed decision is that the government, in its first term, legislated the safeguard mechanism and strengthened the safeguard mechanism. I might point out that the Greens voted for those changes, so the Greens were comfortable with the safeguard mechanism, which requires this project to reduce its emissions by five per cent a year and become net zero by 2050. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

The marine heatwave that's caused the toxic algal bloom off Adelaide's beaches that's seen tens of thousands of sea creatures wash up on the beach is climate driven. Minister, do you acknowledge that approving more coal and gas projects like the North West Shelf risks more dead wildlife on more beaches right around the country?

As I've already said publicly on a number of occasions, I as the environment minister and, I think, all Australians, particularly South Australians, are extremely concerned by the toxic algal bloom that currently sits in South Australian waters. That is why our government this week approved $14 million, being half of a $28 million support package, for South Australia to support their leadership of the response to this algal bloom.

I'm not entirely sure what the Greens' position is as it relates to net zero or emissions, but the reality is that our policy is about supporting net zero by 2050 but in the meantime reducing emissions. Of course, we have a legislated target of 43 per cent, and we'll be announcing a new target this year, but the safeguard mechanism, for example—something the Greens said was okay when they voted for it—is already requiring these kinds of projects to reduce their emissions. If you disagreed with that then, you should have voted against it. You voted for it, so you must— (Time expired)

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

Billions of dollars of public money each year in fossil fuel subsidies worsens the climate crisis and delays the transition. As environment minister, what are you doing to redirect those billions away from fossil fuel companies and towards environmental protection?

We're obviously entering into a different portfolio now. It's really a matter for the finance minister representing the Treasurer. But what I will say as a member of the government is that this government is very proud of the fact that we have taken more action and delivered more investment in the renewable transition than any government in Australia's history. We are the first government to set an ambitious interim target by 2030, and we will have a more ambitious target still when it comes to 2035. We are investing enormous amounts of money in renewables. We have also taken a whole range of other measures to tackle climate change. We are party to international treaties.

The thing that distinguishes the Labor Party from the Greens party on these matters is that we are not just a party of protest; we are a party of progress. We are a party that actually comes to parliament to deliver real reform rather than grandstanding and protesting and achieving absolutely nothing. We make no apologies for making progress on tackling climate change, and we will make a lot more over the course of this term. (Time expired)

This is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government worked hard to support Australians with the cost of living by getting inflation down, real wages up and the lowest average unemployment in 50 years. On 3 May, Australians voted for a government determined to continue delivering policies that mattered to them and made their lives better. On 1 July, a long list of practical policies designed to support Australians took effect. How will these changes help support Australians with the cost of living?

Can I just acknowledge Senator Whiteaker and welcome her to this chamber. I look forward to hearing all of the first speeches from our wonderful additions on this side of the chamber and across the parliament. But, yes, thank you for the question. I'm looking forward to working with all of you in this next term of government.

As Senator Whiteaker pointed out, we have had a range of measures come into effect from 1 July, and that shows you the continuation of the approach we took last term moving into this term of government, where we've made decisions and funded those decisions in the last budget and where they came into effect six weeks after the last election. These are important cost-of-living measures that help households. We have seen a welcome reduction in inflation, which was a challenge in the former term in office and the government had taken a range of steps to support households through that. From 1 July, we have seen a 3½ per cent increase in the minimum wage for minimum wage workers, which will benefit over 2.9 million workers nationwide. The additional energy bill rebate—$150 off energy bills—which is on top of the $300 wiped from energy bills last year, will come into effect and also support small business. There's the new incentive for housing apprentices and the cheaper home batteries, and we're helping small businesses grow with the instant asset write-off. The super guarantee is going to 12 per cent. And, of course, there's our commitment to slash student debt by 20 per cent with the introduction of the legislation in the other place today. These are all measures that we put in place last term that we are seeing come into effect from 1 July. The government will continue to focus on how we can help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures over the next term in government.

Senator Whiteaker, a first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is committed to building on the foundations laid in our first term by strengthening the role of women in the economy. What government policies that came into effect on 1 July will provide cost-of-living support to women across the country?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for that excellent question. It is probably appropriate to note that here in the Senate 56.6 per cent of senators are women and, on our side, 65 per cent of senators are women. We strongly believe in gender equality and representation in leadership. We have seen that across our caucus. That influenced some of the decisions that we took in the last term. We will continue to have women and women's economic equality and addressing gender inequality as a core and central priority for the Albanese Labor government.

From 1 July, on top of the measures that I outlined before, including the increase to the minimum wage, we are seeing an increase in paid parental leave to 24 weeks. We are now having super paid on PPL, which is for the first time ever. That will again help women with some of the pressures they have been getting there. The Commonwealth prac placements and HECS debt— (Time expired)

Senator Whiteaker, a second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government got straight back to work after the election on 3 May because we know there isn't a day to waste when it comes to building a better future and supporting Australians with the cost of living. How will the government continue to deliver these policies that focus on Australians?

As Senator Whiteaker outlined in her question, we haven't wasted a day since the election. The election result was very clear.

I've been sitting on the beach, Katy.

You may not have been working, but we were. You may only work when you come here, Senator Scarr, but we work nonstop. Inside the chamber and outside the chamber, we are at work. Cabinet has been meeting. ERC has been meeting. We have been meeting with our departments. We have been implementing policies that we took to the election. We have been making the decisions that need to be made in order to implement all of the commitments we made to the Australian people. That is the approach we have taken.

We have seen a contrast, I would suggest, to those opposite, where we have seen a fair bit of infighting and taking each other down, trying to point the finger about who was to blame for probably the worst federal campaign anyone in this chamber has ever seen. But, aside from that, we have been working to implement our agenda. (Time expired)

President, congratulations on your re-election as our president. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister please advise the Senate if the government will meet its housing target of 1.2 million new houses?

We do have an ambitious target, Senator Bragg, and we make no apology for that. We have an ambitious target because we want to add to housing supply. I know that those opposite forget that there are two sides to reducing housing prices. One is to provide assistance, as we are, to first home buyers through the Help to Buy scheme and so forth, but the other is to add to supply. So, obviously, this is an ambitious target, but Australia needs an ambitious target, and we need to all work together towards that ambitious target. We need to train more tradies, we need to cut red tape, we need to ensure that we build more local infrastructure, we need to make investments in social housing that—

On a point of order in relation to relevance: that was a great explanation on your aspirations. Will you meet your housing target of 1.2 million homes?

Thank you, Senator Cash. I will draw the minister back to the question. Minister Wong?

I started with an answer to that. Yes, this is an ambitious target—

Yes?

Yes, it is an ambitious target. But do you know what, Senator Bragg? We're going to keep working to meet it. How about you stop blocking it? How about you stop blocking it? Australia would have been a long way further down the path to building more homes if you hadn't teamed up with the Australian Greens to prevent passage of legislation that would have enabled more supply. I do find it remarkable, Senator Bragg, that you block one of the key measures to deliver more supply and then you come in here and say, 'You're not going to meet your target.' Really? Does anybody wonder why? Does anybody wonder why the Australian people so comprehensively rejected those kinds of tactics, Senator?

I invite you—you are someone for whom I have a great deal of regard. I think you're one of the much more intelligent people on that side. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Advice from the independent Department of the Treasury has stated that the government's housing target—and I quote—simply 'will not be met'. Minister, is the Treasury's advice incorrect?

Senator, I apologise; I'm sorry if I've done damage to your career by saying something nice about you! But my point was it would be good in this space if those opposite could perhaps jettison the obstruction for once. I think we all believe that more houses need to be built in this country. It is an ambitious target. We make no apology for an ambitious target. You need an ambitious target if you're actually going to make a measurable difference in terms of Australia's housing supply. I appreciate—I think we all appreciate—the level of ambition, but we are also committed—

On a point of order: the question was very clear. I'm seeking advice as to whether the Treasury's official advice is incorrect or not.

Yes, and I believe the minister is being relevant. You were talking about the targets, and that's how the minister is responding. Minister Wong.

Senator, I've explained to you it is an ambitious target and that we make no apology for that.

What about Treasury's advice?

I'm sure that you can spend a lot of time talking to Treasury about their advice and you can spend a lot of time trying to tell everyone that this is a dreadful idea. We want— (Time expired)

I'm going to invite Senator Bragg to ask his second supplementary.

Minister, maybe we'll just try and change tack a little bit. How many homes have been completed under the Housing Australia Future Fund agenda as at today?

Just to clarify, the senator is talking about the Housing Australia Future Fund which he blocked for two years? Is this right? I just wanted to be clear that what he is asking me for a progress report on is the fund he worked with Senator Faruqi and others to block for two years—or for a number of years. Isn't that interesting. Senator, what I would say to you is I don't have information, as at today, about the operations of the fund. I'm sure that someone will provide it, but what I will tell you is this: Australians know who wants to build houses, Australians know who wants to block the building of houses and they made their views on that very clear at the last election.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. A Roy Morgan survey from July 2025 found that smoking rates have increased since the federal government's vaping sales ban was introduced in mid-2024. While the number of vapers has fallen slightly, by 40,000, the number of people smoking factory-made cigarettes has gone up by 120,000 since the year ending September 2024. Amongst Australians aged 18 to 24, the situation is same. Two young Australians report taking up smoking cigarettes for every young Australian taking up vaping. I'm offering this as context to demonstrate that the question I'm asking is not hypothetical. My question is: will the Albanese government consider the ban on vaping a success if it reduces the number of vapers and increases the number of smokers?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for her question, and I can be very clear about this. Our objective is to protect people—in particular, young people but all people—from the harms that arise from both smoking and vaping. It is why our vaping reforms are so significant. As you well know—as, I'm sure, in the community in which you live—many parents were deeply worried about the rates of vaping that were appearing in young people—in children and in young adults. Some of the evidence was suggesting that the promise that vaping would be a pathway for people to cease smoking was, in fact, not being realised and instead vaping, in some instances, was leading to children or young people taking up smoking. It's why we placed such an emphasis on these reforms.

We acknowledge that it will take time to see significant decreases in vaping and smoking, but we're here for the long haul. We want a healthier Australia for future generations, and we're working against two big opponents. We are up against big tobacco and we are up against organised crime. To date the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Australian Border Force have seized more than 10 million illicit vapes with a current street value of almost half a billion dollars since January 2024. The evidence that we rely upon, the most significant body of evidence, comes from the Generation Vape project, and it shows that the rate of vaping is dropping—that it dropped from 20 to 18 per cent among 18- to 24-year-olds between 2023 and now.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing describes the Cochrane review as high-quality, independent evidence. The Australian Pregnancy Care Guidelines reference Cochrane every fourth page. In fact, Australian taxpayers fund it every year via the National Health and Medical Research Council. Yet the academics hand-picked by the Albanese government to review vaping health impacts, who drew the opposite conclusion to the Cochrane review, argued the Cochrane review was unreliable. Does the Albanese government agree with Cochrane that there is high-certainty evidence that electronic cigarettes— (Time expired)

In the absence of a question, I am trying to think about useful information that I may provide to Senator Tyrrell. I will say this, and I made reference to this in my answer to your primary question: one in three people who vape are likely to take up smoking, and that is why we see these two issues as interlinked. It's why it is now unlawful to supply, manufacture, import or sell a vape outside of a pharmacy setting, and it's also why, at the same time, we are cracking down on illicit tobacco and we're putting the people who profit from this black market on notice.

We recently announced an additional sum of money, $156 million, to help tackle the tobacco black market, and that comes on top of an existing investment of $188.5 million that we made in January 2024, which provided resources for a major Border Force crackdown and strengthened cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories. (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

If you ban vapes but permit the sale of cigarettes, isn't it completely predictable that nicotine-addicted people would start smoking cigarettes? When you make the best way to quit cigarettes illegal—and cigarettes are the only legal consumer products that kill up to half of their users when used exactly as intended by the manufacturer—and you keep cigarettes legal, then the question is: what else did you think was going to happen?

Senator Tyrrell, our objective is to see fewer people either using tobacco or vaping. The reason that we pursue these interventions, as I'm sure you understand, is that these substances have really, really negative impacts on people's health. If a person has an addiction to nicotine then we would strongly encourage them to consult their GP and obtain advice about the options for treating nicotine addiction. There are a range of supports for people who want to quit smoking. There are a range of supports for people who want to end the use of e-cigarettes. You can approach the Quitline; it's 137 848. It's also the case that there are some smoking-cessation products that are subsidised on PBS to provide financial support to help people quit smoking.

My question is to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Senator Gallagher. Last year the then minister released a consultation paper relating to unfair trading practices and committed to banning subscription traps, dynamic pricing and drip pricing. These reforms would provide an immediate benefit to Australians who find themselves trapped paying for subscription services that seem impossible to cancel. Submissions for the consultation closed in December. Minister, since then, what work has been done by the government in this area?

I thank Senator Payman for the question and for the heads-up that she was wanting to ask a question on this. I heard her two-minute statement, incidentally, which covered this matter as well. As was outlined in the question, this is an issue the government has done quite a bit of work on. In fact, consultation started some time ago last year on a number of these areas and finished in December 2024. This is an area the Prime Minister has been very clear about, as has the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and Dr Leigh, who's been leading this work in the other place

Fifty-nine submissions were received, including six confidential submissions. Treasury has since held a number of bilateral meetings and roundtables with stakeholders, including consumer advocates, industry groups and academics. In total, 138 written submissions have been received over the two rounds of consultation. This is an area where we have to work with the state and territory consumer affairs ministers. The government has considered the feedback provided and will focus on unfair-trading-practice reforms to address a range of manipulative practices, including unfair subscription practices such as: subscription traps that make cancelling a subscription difficult; drip-pricing practices, where fees are hidden or added through the stages of a purchase; and the use of dark patterns, which manipulate or undermine consumer decision-making in digital interfaces.

Treasury is now completing the regulatory impact analysis to inform decision-making on reforms to unfair trading practices and is engaging with states and territories to settle a final reform proposal. We do have to have agreement with states and territories. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

I've been speaking to stakeholders as well. They've raised with me further reforms, such as requiring that e-commerce websites allow customers to check out as guests rather than forcing them to register an account with the website, and compelling subscription services to send timely renewal reminders before charging customers, particularly when free trials of services end and become paid subscriptions. Will the government implement these reforms?

I thank Senator Payman for the supplementary. Some months ago, last year, work started on a whole range of unfair trading practices and were considered by the consultation paper. I'm not sure if Senator Payman has seen that, but that covered subscriptions, as I mentioned. It covered the fact of mandating that consumers have an online account, requiring them to provide unnecessary personal information in order to make a purchase, making it difficult to access customer support to raise a complaint or problem and subscription cancellation—a range of areas. These are all areas the government has done work on. If the stakeholders are raising this with Senator Payman, I have no doubt they've raised it through the government's process which occurred several months ago. As I said, these areas are being pursued now through a regulatory impact analysis and with work with the states and territories where we have an intergovernmental agreement for Australian consumer laws. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Research by ING found that 32 per cent of Australians who pay for subscriptions that they don't use say they forgot to cancel a free trial, while 23 per cent forgot that they were subscribed at all. This is an issue that is affecting thousands of Australians across the country. When will the government legislate a ban on subscription traps and other unfair trading practices?

We certainly welcome Senator Payman's support for the reforms that we started investigating last year and have held two consultation rounds on. We are developing the regulatory impact analysis now in order to go forward, with the agreement of the states and territories. This is a priority. It's been led by the government. It's been led by the ministers that identified the problems—problems like the subscriptions, like not being able to cancel or like providing too much information in order to access a purchase. All of those areas are problems that have been identified by this government and will be addressed by this government in cooperation with state and territory governments, as is required under Australian consumer laws.

Thank you, President, and congratulations on your re-election. My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, representing the Minister for Education, Senator Walsh. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on our commitment to a better and fairer education system at all levels and for every Australian? In particular, how is the government acting to make HECS fairer for students and young people?

I thank my friend Senator Smith for her question, my first question. We promised Australians that the first legislation that a re-elected Albanese Labor government introduced would be to wipe 20 per cent off the HECS debt of every Australian. Today, in this first week of this new parliament, we have introduced legislation to deliver exactly that because our No. 1 focus is continuing to deliver cost-of-living relief for the Australian people. This legislation will wipe $16 billion from the HECS debts of Australians. For someone with the average HECS debt of around $27,000, it will mean that about $5½ thousand will be wiped off their debt. It won't just benefit uni students. This legislation covers all HELP loans, including loans to apprentices and to other VET students too, because we know that, whether you're studying at uni or TAFE, you're developing the skills that keep Australia moving.

We know that even though inflation has eased in our first term, cost of living remains a concern for many Australians, particularly young people. That is why we are providing relief for those just starting their careers, by wiping their debt. We know how important it is to get a good education. Education has the power to change lives. It has the power to build our country, by giving people the skills they need to get good, well-paid jobs. That's why Labor will always back the aspirations of Australians who want to go to uni or to TAFE. That is why we are providing HECS relief as the first piece of legislation of this 48th Parliament.

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

As part of our longstanding dedication to a better and fairer education system at all levels for every Australian, before the 2022 election Labor committed to work with state and territory governments to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level. How will this commitment support young people across the country to get the education they need to thrive in work and in life?

Thank you again, Senator Smith. I am thrilled to confirm that the Albanese Labor government is delivering on this promise to fairly fund all Australian schools and all Australian students. All states and territories have signed up to the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which delivers $16.5 billion in additional funding to our public schools. This represents the biggest ever new investment in public schools by the Australian government. This funding will give more than 2.6 million young people in Australia's public schools, and millions more in the years to come, the education they deserve and the opportunity to thrive. It pays for supports and reforms to help more kids keep up, catch up and finish school. This is a game changer for public education, and it's a life changer for children.

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitments to ensure that young people get the benefits of their study before they start paying for it. How are the government's changes to HECS making it fairer for young people and allowing them to keep more of what they earn as they get started in their careers?

In addition to wiping $20 billion of student debt, the Albanese Labor government is making HECS repayments fairer. We know that people shouldn't have to start paying off their HECS debt until their study starts paying off for them. That is why we are raising the threshold where repayments kick in from just over $54,000 a year to $67,000 a year. So, for someone earning $70,000, it will reduce the minimum repayments they have to make by $1,300 a year. This is a big deal. It's a big deal for young people when every dollar really counts as they're setting themselves up for the future. So, for young Australians who are just out of uni, just getting started, this will take a weight off their back. No matter where you live or what your parents do, the Albanese Labor government is making sure the doors of opportunity are open for you.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Last week I walked along the Ardrossan Jetty and saw hundreds of dead garfish and the occasional King George whiting and other things. They were all affected by the algal bloom. I took the time to visit several communities with the member for Grey, Mr Tom Venning, and met locals like Susannah Visser, who runs Gifts Port Vincent and who has seen her income drop by 14 per cent.

On Monday night, the Prime Minister, when referencing a $14 million support package, told 7.30 report:

That's for science and research; it's also for cleanup. It's also for potential mitigation …

He went on to say:

We're responding, giving support to the South Australian Government.

Minister, when will the Prime Minister give emergency support to South Australian communities and businesses?

Thank you, Senator Cadell, for the question. Thank you also for your interview on the ABC this morning. I didn't agree with all of your comments, obviously, but it did demonstrate a real—

Flattering someone else!

Do you want me to flatter you too, Paul? I'll get to you, okay? As a South Australian, I felt like you understood, as I do, and as so many of us do, what is happening in South Australia.

I was really pleased that Senator Watt went to Adelaide on Monday and engaged with the community there. He had a look at what was occurring on, I think, Glenelg Beach—

West Beach.

West Beach—so he got to see it firsthand. I think we are all deeply concerned by the widespread marine species deaths occurring in my home state. We have acted to provide the government with $14 million to support their response to this event, and the Premier put out a press release—I think it was yesterday—which set out the various parameters or bases of the assistance, which includes clean-up, coastal monitoring, small-business grants and so forth. I'm sure you're across the detail of it.

But I think there is a more profound problem here, which is that we know that the climate is changing, and we know that the best advice to date—I appreciate there is going to be a Senate inquiry, and scientists are also grappling with an event we've never seen before—tells us that, in part, a marine heatwave is one of the drivers behind this. We know our oceans are warming. I have spent a lot of my life on that coastline, and I can tell you— (Time expired)

Senator Cadell, first supplementary?

Minister, when we went down to the local caravan park at Stansbury, run by the Stansbury Progress Association, they told me that in the 48 hours prior to my arriving there they'd had 10 cancellations for November, the holiday season. That is 10 families choosing already not to spend their holidays down there. How much of the $14 million that the federal government has given will go to supporting regional tourism operators and other businesses who are going to be out of money for some time into the future?

As I understand it, Senator—the comments of the Prime Minister and the Premier reflect this—this is a jointly funded $28 million package which is intended to assist with science and research and intended to assist with industry assistance in the form of small-business support grants. That's obviously a South Australian program, but we have contributed $14 million to this package. As part of that package, there is also additional funding for $4 million towards clean-up efforts along the beaches and coastline.

So nothing for tourist businesses?

One of the differences between Senator Cadell and you, Senator McKenzie, is he hasn't sought to play politics with this. But we know what Senator McKenzie is like, don't we? We know what Senator McKenzie is like. You are always having a go about anything, and you always want to play politics— (Time expired)

Senator Cadell, second supplementary?

Minister, Steve Bowley was an oyster grower from the Stansbury region who told me he'd been unable to sell a single oyster for 79 days because of the infection—it's now up to 84 days. Bart Butson told me about a fellow Port Wakefield fisherman, a guy who in 2008 swam six hours after his boat sunk, whose catch quota is 7.5 tonnes of calamari but who is unable to catch nine. How much of this money is going to fishing industry and commercial fishers in South Australia?

First, I am very aware of the impact on our fishers. Obviously the gentleman you describe represents one of a number in the industry. Because this toxic bloom is lethal for finfish, that has obviously affected a lot of commercial fishing as well. There is, of course, a concern about aquaculture, depending on how far it spreads. I'm not in a position to go through the detail of the grants, because we don't administer them, but I would say we all recognise this is unprecedented in scale. It has caused the destruction of marine life. It is an environmental or ecological disaster, and it is affecting key industries. Obviously we want to work to work out why this happens and how we can avert it happening again.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Sterle.

Thank you, President, and congratulations on your re-election. My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, none other than Senator Ayres. Many Australian smelters are in negotiations with the Commonwealth state governments about their future. Can the minister update the Senate on these negotiations?

Thank you, and I'd add my congratulations, President, on your re-election. There are indeed several industrial smelters around Australia that are facing significant challenges. From the first day of my appointment, I have been very focused on working through the challenges at each of these facilities with a view to Australia's national interest. They include the Whyalla steelworks, of course, Tomago Aluminium, the old Mount Isa Mines facility—which is currently operated by Glencore—Nyrstar's Port Pirie and Hobart smelters, and the Liberty Bell Bay manganese smelter. They all face different markets, different cost pressures and distinct challenges at each site. But they do have some things in common: they all add value to Australian minerals to turn them into Australian metals to strengthen our economic resilience and to create good jobs in regional Australian communities.

Think of Liberty Bell Bay. Manganese ore mined from Groote Eylandt in the far north is shipped south, where a smelter powered by clean hydropower turns it into ferromanganese and silicomanganese. From there, it goes into steel made everywhere from Port Kembla to the United States. It's a historically profitable operation with strong medium- to long-term prospects. Each of these smelters are facing industrial and mining subsidies and non-market practices in global trade. It's a challenge that has been faced by many of our partner economies.

I will have more to say over coming months on our national approach to developing Australia's industrial capability, but I do want to make a few observations about the Albanese Labor government's response—probably in response to your supplementary question, Senator Sterle.

Senator Sterle, first supplementary?

I reckon you can, Minister. Can you provide further details about the causes of the challenges facing the smelting sector? What is the Albanese Labor government doing to address these and why is the government taking this approach?

Well, as we all know—

Just a moment. It's lovely that you are so keen to answer, but please wait for the call. Minister Ayres.

I am—as you know, President—always enthusiastic and, of course, in my first answer I am learning how many words it is I can fit into a two-minute response. Indeed, time is rapidly drifting away on this one.

Thank God there's a time limit.

'Thank God there's a time limit,' Senator Watt says. The Whyalla intervention demonstrated that effective action coordinated between federal and state governments and focused on the national interest delivers a long-term pathway for industry. Firms in this sector should learn the right lessons from that intervention. They should expect me and the government to act, consistent with our broader Future Made in Australia national interest framework, to protect domestic capabilities that are in the national interest. That is not a blank cheque. I will be respectful of firms that operate these facilities, but I expect firms to deliver investment, sound business practices and good governance.

Senator Sterle, second supplementary?

This is so exciting. Beyond short-term challenges, can the minister explain the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia vision for the smelting sector in Australia? How will the government ensure it delivers for the Australian people and the economy?

The smelting sector is a pathway to our vision for a future made in Australia—a more resilient, prosperous economy where all Australians, particularly Australians in our regions and outer suburbs, can get good jobs. In August, I will convene a metals- and minerals-processing roundtable in the lead-up to the productivity roundtable to discuss how smelting can drive long-term investment and productivity growth.

The opportunity is clear. We have the world's best renewable and mineral resources. This gives us a strong, comparative and competitive advantage—particularly related to our renewable energy advantage, producing green iron and green aluminium in the national interest to deliver good jobs and economic prosperity. That is why the previous government and this government will continue on this trajectory, making investments like the $2 billion green aluminium production credit, opposed by those opposite— (Time expired)

President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

by leave—I move:

That a motion relating to the conduct of a senator may be moved immediately and debated for up to 30 minutes (6 minutes per speaker).

I understand the motion has been circulated already to the chamber. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the procedural motion, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) expresses its profound disapproval of Senator Faruqi's disrespectful protest and actions contrary to standing orders during the Governor-General's speech to open the 48th Parliament on 22 July 2025, given the senator has many other avenues to express her views;

(b) notes that the actions by Senator Faruqi to use a prop, knowing this to be a breach of the standing orders, drew the Governor-General and the Chief Justice into political debate, which is highly inappropriate and undermines our democratic system;

(c) supports the actions of the President in addressing the matter as soon as the Senate sat following the speech, noting that when the Governor-General is in the chair the President cannot exercise the usual powers or authority to manage the chamber as the President would on a typical sitting day;

(d) calls on:

(i) all senators to respect our democratic institutions, including our Parliament, to engage in debates and commentary respectfully, and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive actions that reflect poorly on the Senate, both inside and outside the chamber, at all times,

(ii) all party leaders to act within their parties to uphold the standards of the Senate, and

(iii) Senator Faruqi to apologise for the unparliamentary conduct, disrespect of proceedings and disregard for the position of the Governor-General as our Head of State and conventions of our parliamentary democracy; and

(e) in light of this conduct, does not regard it as appropriate for Senator Faruqi to represent the Senate as a member of any delegation during the life of this Parliament.

Yesterday, we saw in this chamber an elected senator deliberately engaging in behaviour that she knows to be contrary to the standing orders. During that debate, she made a number of comments also as people left the chamber about the issue that she was referencing. I want to go to the issue that Senator Faruqi asserts this is about before I come back to the issue of procedure.

When it comes to the conflict in Gaza, Australians are understandably distressed by the violence, including the deaths of so many innocent civilians, but they also know that Australia is not responsible for what is happening in the Middle East. But the Greens political party doesn't want to listen to Australians; they want to lecture Australians, and they ignore facts that get in their way. And, again, we see they have not learned from the election. For example, they continue to call for sanctions against Israel, ignoring the fact that we have already imposed sanctions on two Israeli ministers for their role in human rights abuses against Palestinians, in partnership with Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the UK.

In this place yesterday, Senator Faruqi went a step further. She disrespected the rules of the parliament by holding up a sign for the duration of the Governor-General's address on the opening of this term of parliament. Do you know what that address is about? It's all about our country; it's all about Australia. It's about decisions taken by all of Australia during the campaign, but Senator Faruqi wanted it to be about her—presumably, in her campaign for the leadership of the Greens. One thing I think the election showed very clearly was Australians making it clear that they reject attempts by some in this place to reproduce the conflict here. Australians want a country that is democratic, a country that operates by rules and laws, and Australians expect us as their elected representatives to uphold our democratic institutions, to demonstrate a degree of respect for each other, as they do, and a respect for our institutions. You know what they don't expect? They don't expect any of us to place ourselves above the institution that operates in their name, which is the Parliament of Australia.

What we saw this week is what we have seen before from Senator Faruqi. Senator Faruqi demands respect, but she does not offer it. She denigrates anyone who doesn't agree with her on everything regularly, including personally. I don't think this is the leadership Australians expect. I don't believe this is what Australian democracy is about. Senator Faruqi and others take absolutist positions with the same kinds of grievance politics that have been so destructive in other countries. It's 'my way or the highway'—the same lack of basic respect for other Australians. But, of course, what Senator Faruqi actually wants most is attention. That's why you're here. What she wants most of all is attention. Presumably—

President, I make a point of order under standing order 193(3), and I ask you please to rule whether those comments—which, I note, are not specific in nature, other than that they are directed specifically at Senator Faruqi, but are general in nature about Senator Faruqi's behaviour—are imputations of improper motives or personal reflections on Senator Faruqi, in which case they are against the standing orders.

Thank you, Senator McKim. I'll seek advice.

Senator McKim, it is my view, and it is the view of the clerks, that they don't rise to the level that you have suggested. So I'm going to ask Senator Wong to continue.

Yet again, respect is demanded but not offered.

Order! Senator Wong, please resume your seat. As this debate is about what occurred in this place yesterday, it will be heard in silence, whether you agree with the comments or not. Senators are entitled to put a respectful position, and it will be listened to in silence by every single senator in this place. Senator Wong, please continue.

As I said, I think we all understand that what Senator Faruqi wants most of all is attention, and it may well be that her move is designed to show her Greens base that she's more hardline than the current leader.

What we know is that Senator Faruqi and the Greens ignore the facts. They ignore facts that get in the way of their political agenda. They ignore the sanctions Australia has imposed, just as they ignore the work we are doing to provide humanitarian support. They call for us to provide aid to Gaza, ignoring the fact that we have committed $110 million in aid for civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, and they ignore that we are part of many countries internationally working together to put pressure on Israel for aid to flow unimpeded. Senator Faruqi demands that we airdrop aid into Gaza, ignoring that we did contribute to airdrops in the past. But she also ignores that many aid organisations have since made clear that this isn't an efficient way or a safe way to deliver aid to people in need.

The reality is that this is a very difficult conflict. I have often spoken in this place about the need for all of us to be responsible about how we deal with it here. I also would say to the Senate: we have moved this motion because we do not believe that this institution should be denigrated in the way that it was. All of us have a personal responsibility and a collective responsibility to uphold standards. It's not as if Senator Faruqi doesn't have a voice. (Time expired)

I rise today on behalf of the opposition to speak to the motion and indicate that, whilst the opposition appreciates the government moving the motion, we do not believe that it goes far enough, given the circumstances that occurred yesterday, and amendments on behalf of the opposition have been circulated in the chamber. I move:

Omit paragraphs (c) to (e), substitute:

(c) notes the actions of the President in addressing the matter as soon as the Senate sat following the speech, recognising that when the Governor-General is in the chair the President cannot exercise the usual powers or authority to manage the chamber as the President would on a typical sitting day;

(d) calls on:

(i) all senators to respect our democratic institutions, including our Parliament, to engage in debates and commentary respectfully, and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive actions that reflect poorly on the Senate, both inside and outside the chamber, and to uphold the standards of the Senate at all times, and

(ii) Senator Faruqi to apologise for the unparliamentary conduct, disrespect of proceedings and disregard for the position of the Governor-General as our Head of State and conventions of our parliamentary democracy;

(e) in the event Senator Faruqi fails to apologise for the unparliamentary conduct, calls on the President to report to the Senate that Senator Faruqi has committed an offence in accordance with standing order 203 so that a motion may be moved that Senator Faruqi be suspended from the sitting of the Senate; and

(f) in light of this conduct, does not regard it as appropriate for Senator Faruqi to represent the Senate as a member of any delegation during the life of this parliament.

As I said, we appreciate that the government expresses its profound disapproval of Senator Faruqi's disrespectful protest and the actions. However, we believe that the ultimate punishment fails to meet the gravity of what occurred during yesterday's joint sitting of parliament. It falls short of what Australians rightly expect of their elected representatives. What we witnessed yesterday was not simply a breach of standing orders; it was a breach of respect for the institution of the Senate. It was a breach of our rules, for our history, but, most importantly, the people that we serve.

All senators here now know what occurred. During the entirety of the Governor-General's 35-minute address, a speech that formally opens the parliament and reflects the sovereign authority of His Majesty the King, Senator Faruqi chose to hold up a political protest sign. Let us be clear. The act was not incidental, it was not momentary and it certainly was not spontaneous. It was deliberate, prolonged and clearly intended to politicise a solemn and ceremonial event. It was conducted in full view of the Governor-General, of members of both houses of the Australian parliament, and of the public, both those in the galleries and those watching from home.

President, the opening of parliament is not just a formality; it is a foundational moment. It represents the continuity of our democratic traditions, the legitimacy of our institutions and the unity of our nation. It is not a time for political stunts. It is a time for dignity, for restraint and for honouring the trust placed in us, as senators, by the Australian people.

Senator Faruqi's behaviour, by any measure, was in breach of the standing orders, and we must all ask ourselves when considering this motion: What message does Senator Faruqi's behaviour and her conduct send? What message does it send to the Australians watching at home, many of whom look to this place still, today, with hope and expectation? What message does it send to young Australians learning about our democracy? And, importantly, what message does it send to our international partners and diplomatic allies who rightly expect that our parliament conducts itself with seriousness and with respect?

This was not a protest in the street. This was not a media appearance. This was the formal opening of the 48th Parliament of Australia. There are many opportunities—and we are afforded the great privilege—to raise political concerns: in speeches, in debates, in committee hearings, in question time, in press conferences and, yes, even at peaceful protests outside of this building. But this chamber must remain a place where rules matter—where order, not opportunism, prevails.

Let me be crystal clear. The issue here is not whether a senator or senators hold dissenting views. Of course they can; that is their right and, I would even say—based on their party—their duty. But with that right comes a responsibility—the responsibility to act in accordance with the rules of this place and to exercise judgement about how and when that dissent is to be expressed.

Senator Faruqi, like any one of us, has ample opportunity to raise her concerns within this chamber, outside of this chamber, through the media, through statements, or even, should she choose, through peaceful protest. What she chose instead was to use one of the most important moments on the parliamentary calendar to stage a protest that was entirely inappropriate in both setting and manner.

The opposition firmly believes—and it's reflected in our amendment—that Senator Faruqi's actions deserve formal recognition under standing order 203. We believe that she should be called upon to explain herself and apologise, and, if she fails to do so, we believe that the Senate should be given the opportunity to suspend her from this place, as the rules allow and, I would argue, as the gravity of what occurred yesterday at the official opening of the 48th Parliament of Australia, quite frankly deserves.

To those who may argue that such a response—given that the motion in particular does not address this—is heavy-handed, let me say this: rules without enforcement are meaningless, standards without accountability are hollow and institutions without discipline become irrelevant. The Senate is not a forum for street theatre. It is not—

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Senator Cash, please be seated. Remove the interjector and turn the broadcasting off.

Broadcasting can recommence. I have asked for there to be no interjections in this chamber or anywhere else. This is a serious debate. It requires a serious response, and it requires respect from every single senator in this place and anyone else in the gallery.

The opposition urges all senators to consider what is at stake—the dignity of the Australian Senate, the confidence of the public and the reputation of our parliament on the world stage. We would ask that the Senate support our amendments and allow us to go forward to suspend Senator Faruqi.

I rise to speak against this motion and the amendments circulated by the opposition. What a disgrace to seek to discipline a member of this chamber for engaging in a peaceful act of protest by holding up a piece of paper in support of the Palestinian people.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I asked, whether you agreed with statements or not, for senators to put those statements in silence. If you can't do that, remove yourself from the chamber.

And what a disgrace to say that it was attention seeking by Senator Faruqi for herself rather than the issue of starving women, children and men in Palestine. That says more about Senator Wong than it does about Senator Faruqi.

Over the last three days, ordinary people—parents, grandparents and young people from around the country—have been converging on Parliament House to demand Australia take urgent action to bring pressure to bear on the Netanyahu government and end the genocide in Gaza, and it's because of the pressure of those incredible human rights warriors around the country that the government is slowly, ever so slowly, moving and that the Prime Minister has made some positive movements towards calling out Israel. We do welcome Australia's signing onto that latest international joint statement, but words aren't going to feed people, and they're not enough to stop the genocide of the Netanyahu government. So we must continue to speak the truth, and we will, and we cannot be afraid of it.

Everyone in this place must now admit that, with starvation, this is a crime of genocide. Senator Faruqi was peacefully pointing out the truth. Gaza is starving. The stories that are coming of starvation and hunger are devastating, and yet, almost two years into this conflict and this ongoing genocide, the most that the government can manage is some more stern words and some signatures. Letters are not going to feed the starving children in Gaza, and letters are not going to stop the genocide. The government must immediately intervene. They must coordinate direct aid into Gaza. They must sanction the Netanyahu government. They must end the sale of the bomb door parts into that region. This is the bare minimum that they should be doing.

What they shouldn't be doing is disciplining anyone who dares to speak out, who dares to speak the truth, either in this place or anywhere else. The very idea that we are discussing disciplining Senator Faruqi for holding up a piece of paper, raising attention to the plight of those starving in Gaza, whilst completely ignoring the fact that One Nation senators turn their backs on the welcome to country, only proves how out of touch with ordinary people this place is. So I want to acknowledge everyone who is being honest about the genocide in Gaza, including the staunch and courageous Senator Faruqi, and I want to acknowledge everyone who is calling on this government to do more. I want to salute the hearts of all those people who've been at the front of the building these last few days, demanding action from our government. I want to recognise the academics, students, journalists and artists who have refused to remain silent despite the great personal cost that it has taken. The Greens will not be silent.

I thank Senator Scarr for ceding to allow me to make a few remarks and follow up on a couple of things that the Leader of the Australian Greens says. In particular, as to her concern that this is about us trying to control or not allow to speak someone who wants or dares to speak, that is absolutely not what this is about. Senator Faruqi has so many opportunities to speak and to raise issues, as every other senator does, but everyone else, to the largest part possible, does it in accordance with the standing orders and the rules of this place. If we are to pretend that they don't matter and don't exist anymore, nobody would ever have an opportunity or have a right to say anything in this place. Those are the rules that we all sign up to when we come into this place. Obviously Senator Faruqi feels that she is exempt from those rules, but the rules allow all of us as senators to participate in this chamber. That is why they are important.

On the first day of the 48th Parliament, at the opening of parliament, we had Her Excellency the Governor-General in the chair and the Chief Justice and others in this chamber to recognise that most important day in our democratic system, to represent the will of the Australian people through our formal processes. To have that used as an opportunity to be disorderly I think disappointed everybody because of the importance of that day. Senator Faruqi has made and will no doubt continue to make her points, as she is able to do as a senator in this place, but what happened yesterday was disorderly, and there has to be a consequence for that or there is no point to our standing orders at all.

Senator Waters also incorrectly—if she had listened to Senator Wong's contribution—tries to minimise the position that the Australian government has taken on and our concern for the conflict in the Middle East. She failed to recognise, when she called for aid, that we have provided over $110 million for aid in recognition of our responsibilities. That's disingenuous. To present this as some mechanism where the Greens are the only people that can raise issues, and to raise them in the way that they choose to, and to fail to recognise the ongoing commitment of the Australian government and the leadership that has being shown through international forum as appropriate to raise concerns about the conflict in the Middle East, is unfair and not being recognised by Senator Waters. Senator Waters is the Leader of the Australian Greens. She is a new leader of the Greens, but there are times when you need to lead, and you need to lead your senators. I would say that response from Senator Waters indicates that she is not prepared to do that.

On the issue of One Nation senators who have chosen, it appears, to turn their backs on the opening of the day, the acknowledgement of country, we are concerned about that and we have raised that. We want the opportunity to speak with First Nations caucus members before we take further steps on that. But we are concerned about that.

Senator Faruqi has, as I said, lots of opportunities to make the points that she wants to make, but to do so as she chose to do yesterday was deliberate, and it was about seeking attention. There is no other reason why she would choose to do it in the way that she did and in a way that reflects so poorly on the Senate and the opening of the parliament. To choose to do it when the Governor-General, Her Excellency, who is a non-partisan figure in our political system, was in charge and chairing the chamber was incredibly disrespectful to the role that she plays, the Chief Justice and others in our democratic system.

I think the motion that Senator Wong has moved does reflect on the seriousness of Senator Faruqi's actions yesterday and the disrespect she showed you, President, in the fact that you were not in the chair and not able to chair the chamber as you would normally would. I think this should also be noted. On the question of the amendments by Senator Cash, the government will not be supporting those amendments. We would hope that Senator Faruqi does apologise for her unparliamentary conduct, and we do believe that the sanction as set out in subsection (e) is a commensurate and suitable response to the embarrassment of yesterday's behaviour.

President, I genuinely felt for you yesterday as you were sitting next to our Governor-General for the length of her address and you were in such an invidious position as to what you could do in that situation. I genuinely felt for you, and, in speaking on this matter, I'd like to make that point, and I think that point should be made.

The second point I'd like to make is that, to some extent, it should be irrelevant as to what the issue is. The standing orders are the standing orders, and the standing orders should be blind as to what the issue is. If anything, the more vexed, the more difficult, the more problematic the issue—and we've seen the emotion that this issue can generate—the more we should cling to the standing orders as providing structure. I'm going to give you some flattery here, Senator Wong. Senator Wong has often used an evocative term that has stayed with me—there should be guardrails in relation to the debate we conduct in this place. There must be guardrails around that debate. One of those guardrails is the standing orders. It should not matter what the issue is.

The other point I'd like to make through you, President, is that Senator Waters managed to give quite a passionate contribution to this debate, but she managed to do that without breaching the standing orders—without using props, and showing respect and due regard with respect to the sensitivity of the debate and the issues. She managed to do that entirely within the standing orders, and I recognise that. In relation to the responsibility of leaders, I would just like to make this point: I don't think it just falls upon Senator Wong, Senator Cash, Senator Gallagher, Senator Waters and Senator McKenzie to be the ones who must keep us in line as senators. I think it's an obligation each and every one of us has. It's an obligation of each and every one of us. When we discuss matters such as this, we shouldn't just be looking at our leaders. We should be looking at our own obligations to this institution as stewards and custodians of this institution, and I think that's an extremely important point to make.

Lastly, in relation to Senator Gallagher's contribution about whether or not the motion as it was originally presented deals adequately with this matter, if you're not going to trigger standing order 203 in relation to such an egregious breach on the first day of convening the parliament, when we had the Governor-General, the Chief Justice and our colleagues from the other place, when are you going to use standing order 203? If you don't use standing order 203 in these circumstances, aren't you just inviting a repeat, another breach, at the next opportunity? When would you actually invoke standing order 203? I really do commend the amendments proposed to the Senate by Senator Cash, and I think we all need to double-down in terms of our responsibility to comply with the standing orders and conventions of this place, even more so when we're dealing with extremely emotional and passionate issues.

Gaza is starving. Words won't feed them. Sanction Israel. That is the truth on the sign that I held up in the Senate yesterday, and I will not back down from this goal, because Palestinians are being murdered, starved and displaced by Israel as we speak and all you can do is crack down on people who protest, who tell the truth, who hold up a mirror to you all for your silence and complicity. Labor and the coalition in this chamber want to avoid the truth. You don't want to see it or hear it, and now here we are. You want to force me to apologise for telling the truth. Well, well done. You can all pat yourselves on the back and move on while Palestinians are slaughtered.

MPs here and outside of here are accusing me of being disrespectful and denigrating the parliament. You should all reflect, for a minute even, on your silence and your complicity in and even enabling of a genocide. That is what degrades this place and that is what reflects poorly on this place—not a sign trying to wake you up from your moral stupor. But do you know what? You are more focused on cracking down on black and brown women in this parliament. You've done this before.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Faruqi.

You have done this before. You are more focused—

Order! Senator Faruqi, I've asked you to sit down. You may not have heard me because there was too much noise. Senator Faruqi, I'm going to remind you that you should be relevant to the motion, and I have asked other senators in this place, if they can't listen in respectful silence, to remove themselves. Senator Faruqi, nobody has questioned your right to hold an opinion. You need to be reflecting on the motion.

I raise a point of order. I seek that Senator Faruqi withdraw the allegation that senators are being racist in this chamber. That is the obvious imputation from what she just said about all of us.

I will inform the chamber that, because there was so much noise in here, I didn't hear that comment, but Minister Gallagher has asked that Senator Faruqi withdraw that comment. Senator Faruqi, I am going to ask you to withdraw that comment.

President, this is exactly what I said: you crack down in this chamber on black and brown women—

Senator Faruqi, sit down please. I have always been very, very clear as the President that offences or alleged offences are not to be repeated. I have asked you to withdraw. That means you stand up and you withdraw the comment. Please do as I have asked you to, Senator Faruqi.

Could I ask you, President, to review that comment. I withdraw it for now because I want to get on and talk about the substantive motion.

Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I will review it and thank you for withdrawing.

I want to draw attention to the words of Martin Luther King Jr in his letter from a Birmingham jail. It seems especially relevant while you all sit here and censure me for breaking what you call the decorum of parliament, for my failure to be polite or respectful while a genocide unfolds, while kids are being killed. He wrote of his frustration with the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice, who seeks only the absence of tension rather than the presence of justice, who says, 'I agree with the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your ways of achieving it' and who has a paternalistic belief they can set the timetable and decorum of another people's freedom. Well, you can set your standards because you don't want to see the truth. You don't want to do anything about the genocide.

One day you will all have to explain to your children and grandchildren where you stood when tens of thousands of men, women and children were being slaughtered. I wouldn't like to be in your shoes then, because you are all on the wrong side of history. Instead of sanctioning me, maybe you should think about sanctioning Israel. They are the ones starving, slaughtering and displacing Palestinians; blowing up hospitals; obliterating schools; and wiping out entire bloodlines. But you ignore all of that, you ignore your constituents and you ignore your communities. You can't even read the room. You can't engage with people in your own communities who have, for 21 months—and, for some, much longer than that—been crying out for you to do something, to take real action to stop this genocide, to stop the starvation, to sanction Israel. But I'm not really holding out hope, honestly.

I can tell you this: the Greens will not be silent as this genocide unfolds. You will not be able to intimidate me or any of my colleagues. We will never stop fighting for freedom for Palestine and all those oppressed people. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. (Time expired)

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Cash to Senator Wong's motion be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Senators, yesterday the eyes of the Australian people were on our chamber for the opening of the 48th Parliament. We had in attendance Her Excellency Sam Mostyn AC, Governor-General, as well as the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, the deputy justice and the members of the House of Representatives. This occasion is steeped in Australian parliamentary history and links back to Westminster traditions. This occasion should be respected.

When the Governor-General is in the Senate, she presides over proceedings; I am not in the chair and I do not have my usual powers or authority to manage the chamber, as I would on a typical sitting day. The actions of Senator Faruqi—using a political sign as a prop, knowing this to be a breach of the standing orders—drew the Governor-General, the Chief Justice and the deputy justice into political debate, which is highly inappropriate.

Senator Faruqi, you are a champion of respectful debate and behaviour in this chamber. You have used the processes of the Senate and its committees to reinforce the expectations in relation to behavioural standards. These standards and expectations, which you expect, also apply to you. Your actions during the Governor-General's address were utterly disrespectful and showed a complete disregard for the rules, the traditions and the customs of this place. These actions were in direct contradiction to what you expect from others. There is ample opportunity for you to express your views with a contribution at an appropriate time, but your actions yesterday were out of order.

When I was re-elected as President of the Senate, I assured the chamber that I took our rules and procedures seriously and that I would apply them with consistency, clarity and integrity. It has been suggested to me that your conduct warranted suspension from the Senate for disorderly conduct. I am always reluctant to invoke the standing orders about infringement of order. My approach, like that of previous presidents, has been to try and find ways to bring senators back to order, rather than moving and naming them. This was not possible in the circumstances of yesterday's proceedings. Ultimately, it was a matter for the chamber to determine its response, and the chamber has responded.

Further, I will not allow the public gallery in the Senate to be used to make political points, and that is why I called for the removal of the interjector. I have acted entirely in line with how I managed the gallery in the previous parliament. Sanctions for disruption by guests are determined by the Black Rod and the Serjeant-at-Arms and have nothing to do with me. A sanction has been applied in order with our custom.

by leave—I move government business notice of motion No. 8, standing in the name of Senator Gallagher:

That consideration of the business before the Senate on the following days be interrupted at the specified time, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make their first speeches (of approximately 20 minutes), as follows:

(a) Wednesday, 23 July 2025, at 5 pm—Senators Whiteaker, Blyth and Mulholland;

(b) Monday, 28 July 2025, at 5 pm—Senator Ananda-Rajah;

(c) Tuesday, 29 July 2025, at 5 pm—Senator Whitten;

(d) Wednesday, 30 July 2025, at 5 pm—Senators Dolega and Collins;

(e) Monday, 25 August 2025, at 5 pm—Senator Walker; and

(f) Tuesday, 26 August 2025, at 5.45 pm—Senator Dowling.

Question agreed to.

Mr Deputy President, I congratulate you on your election to the office. I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

With Labor having a commanding majority in the House of Representatives, a very cosy relationship with the Australian Greens and plans to legislate for additional senators from the territories, Western Australians are on a 'GST watch'. Senator Wong, in question time today, said that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese came to Western Australia and said that WA's GST is safe under Labor. Well, Western Australians want Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to go to Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart and Adelaide and tell the rest of Australia that he's sorry but WA's GST deal is safe. The key element of that GST deal, delivered by a coalition government in 2018, is the preservation of the 75c floor, which guarantees Western Australia no less than 75c in every dollar.

Western Australians are on a GST watch because, in last year's budget, the Infrastructure Investment Program delivered to Western Australia a drop in revenue. The GST watch that Western Australians are on is not just to watch over the preservation of the 75c floor; it's to watch over Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and make sure that he does not work to undermine Western Australia's federal revenues by stealth. Last year's budget showed that the Infrastructure Investment Program's contribution in Western Australian will fall from $1.4 billion to just $370 million by 2028. So, when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese comes to Perth, goes to Kings Park, with its majestic views over our city skyline, and says that he wants his federal WA Labor MPs to be bold and stand up for the WA GST deal, he is saying to Western Australians, 'Look over here, because I've got a plan for something different for federal revenues that come to Western Australia.'

Let us be reminded that federal Labor MPs were slow to join the very loud chorus of noise coming from Western Australian voters who were arguing for a better GST deal many, many years ago—so much so that it was the Labor deputy premier and now premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, who had to call out federal Labor MPs in Western Australia, asking them—demanding—at the time to take the GST issue seriously. In 2017, the West Australian newspaper reported:

To date, WA Labor members in Canberra have done nothing about the GST other than grumble the system is a rip-off.

At the time, the Sunday Times reported that federal Labor representatives had let WA down on the WA GST issue.

This government, elected 11 weeks ago, has a commanding majority in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, it will govern with the support of the Australian Greens. It has a well-known, public plan to increase the representation of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Increasing the representation of territories in the Senate diminishes the representation of every other state. Those three things together will give Prime Minister Anthony Albanese permission to change the GST arrangements and to continue the reduction in federal funding of Western Australian roads, health and education services.

Western Australian federal Labor MPs that have come to this place this week are on notice. Western Australians will hold them accountable to stand up and to be vocal in their defence of the GST arrangements that were put in place by previous coalition governments.

Deputy President, I also congratulate you on your election to the role. I always appreciate the opportunity to stand and talk about the economy and the changes that we've already delivered for every single Australian that mean that Australians today are keeping more of what they earn. We cut the taxes of every single Australian taxpayer. What did those on the other side do? The coalition opposed cutting the taxes of every single Australian. They opposed Labor's bigger tax cuts for 11½ million Australians, including for those people earning less than $45,000, who would have got absolutely nothing if Peter Dutton had got his way. It's an absolute shame on them.

I thought it might be useful to reflect on the contribution of coalition MPs when it comes to Labor's tax cuts for all Australians. Here is just a bit of a serving of the words that we heard about the tax cuts. Coalition MPs said that tax cuts for all Australians were 'an egregious error', 'a betrayal', 'treachery', 'trickery', 'absolutely shameful', 'class warfare', 'a war on aspiration', 'a war on hardworking Australians', 'a lifetime tax on aspiration', 'divisive', 'regressive', 'morally bankrupt', 'bad policy', 'a handful of dollars', 'small fry', 'a big tax grab', 'inflationary', and 'Marxist economics which will crush confidence, obliterate opportunity and undermine the strength of your economy'. I'm keen to hear from everyday Australians about the extra money they've now got in their pay packet and whether they associate those words with keeping more of what they earn. I don't think that they will.

We know that the coalition want to jack up income taxes for every single taxpayer—why else would they oppose our tax cuts? That is their plan for you. They want you to pay more tax. On our side, we are cutting taxes for every single Australian taxpayer. Our tax policies haven't changed on this side. Our focus when it comes to tax is delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer, improving tax compliance, ensuring multinationals pay a fairer share of tax, changes to high-balance super, changes to the PRRT, and incentives to support small business and encourage investment in areas like housing and clean energy. We are absolutely putting more money back in the pockets of everyday Australians like you. We know that people are feeling it. They are feeling it in the grocery aisle, at the petrol station and when their bills come in. And we know that it's real help that makes a difference.

I want to take a moment, with the brief time that I've got left, to talk about our new cost-of-living measures that were introduced on 1 July and what they actually mean for people. These changes aren't abstract. They're not numbers on a spreadsheet; they are real. They benefit all Australians. From 1 July, more than three million workers got a pay rise—finally above inflation. For so many families, that extra bit in their pay packet makes a real difference. It's about $1,670 a year for full-time workers on the minimum wage. That's groceries, uniforms and one less thing to worry about. It means parents working night shifts or young people starting out are seeing more in their bank accounts, and that is a good thing. They're not just getting by; they're starting to get ahead. These Australians are now getting more in their pay and are paying a bit less on their bills. It's funny what happens when you have a government that actually cares about what is happening for Australians. On top of that, as the icing on the cake, we've knocked $150 off your energy bills.

Likewise, Mr Deputy President, I congratulate you on your election to your role. It's wonderful to see you back in the chair.

This is the first opportunity I've had to speak in the new parliament. I think Australians were watching very closely what happened during question time today, and, indeed, I was listening very carefully to what happened during question time today. When Australians switch on the television to watch question time, they want to know whether their government is standing up for what's important to them and standing up for our national interests, our values and our future. They want to know whether their government is making sure that it has good control of the economy and that it is doing everything it can to make their lives easier. They want to see leadership. Right now, at least based on the display that we saw in question time today, I don't think that Australians would have seen the leadership that they deserve.

We know that Labor has won the election. Now it is time for us to see whether they are going to keep their promises and whether they can actually deliver better outcomes for Australians. Frankly, based on what I heard here in question time today and based on the three years of Labor government prior to this, my hopes are not high. Labor can't handle the economy. Labor can't build more houses, despite the fact that that's what they promised Australians they would do. My fear is that this government will continue to let Australians down at every turn, because you certainly weren't getting a straight answer to the questions that the opposition asked of the government today—not a straight answer at all. There were no facts; it was all spin. Well, here are some of the facts—particularly in relation to questions about housing and questions about the economy.

The Labor government's Housing Australia Future Fund has been one of the greatest failures in public policy in recent history. The government promised to build 1.2 million new homes by 2030, and now we know, because of advice that has been produced by the treasury department, this promise will be broken. For the government to build 1.2 million new homes by 2030, the maths says they need to build 250,000 homes a year. So far, they are barely hitting 170,000 homes a year. That number is significantly down from the 190,000 new homes that were built on average every year under the previous coalition government. That's something that I know that many people on this side of the chamber, on the opposition benches, are incredibly proud of. But it is saddening and disappointing for Australians to see that a government that promised so much in this regard—like I said, they promised to build 1.2 million new homes by 2030—doesn't look like it is going to get there.

We talked a lot about homeownership during the election campaign and during the three years prior to that. We in the coalition want to see Australians achieving the dream of owning their own home. Indeed, we had plenty of election policies that addressed that very issue. But all we have from Labor is a promise for something that we now know they are not going to achieve. Australians deserve honesty; they don't deserve spin. As I said earlier, there was an awful lot of spinning going on from the government here in question time today.

Here are some more facts about the economy. Under Labor, the economy is stalling, and households have gone backwards. Households are in recession, business investment is falling and productivity has flatlined. The economy only grew by a lacklustre 0.2 per cent in the March quarter, while annual growth is stuck at 1.3 per cent, which is less than half the long-term average. These figures from the ABS have completely obliterated Labor's pre-election claim that the economy had turned a corner. Treasurer Jim Chalmers's response is that any growth is a good outcome. It is clear that this Labor government has a very low ambition for Australia's economy, and we will continue to ask questions about that ambition throughout this parliament. (Time expired)

Labor makes no apologies for having an ambitious housing target. We need an ambitious target, given the scale of the problem we inherited when we came to government in 2022. I take note that those opposite, the coalition, in their decade of power, did not actually have a housing minister for at least six years of that decade. When we came to government, we found absolutely no movement in social and affordable housing and no plan to increase housing supply, so we had a situation where we had demand chasing an ever-shrinking pool of housing right across the country. Of course, that just drove up rents and house prices, putting the great Australian dream further and further out of reach out of young people.

We all understand the scale of the problem, but I find it incredibly disingenuous that those opposite would challenge us on our track record when they had the temerity in this chamber to delay key housing bills not just once, not just twice, but at least three times. The Housing Australia Future Fund was an election promise in 2022. I know it well because I spoke to thousands of people in Higgins, along with Senator Stewart, who accompanied me on doors and on the phones, describing to those constituents what we were offering. I described in detail the Housing Australia Future Fund, and they liked it. They responded to it because they felt that we needed a legacy reform that would outlive, frankly, any government, good or bad. The Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion investment in 55,000 homes, was just that vehicle.

You'd think that winning a seat like Higgins would send a message to the coalition—the first Labor member in this blue of blue-ribbon seats, a seat of leaders, a seat of four previous Liberal prime ministers. You'd think that that would send a message, but, of course, it didn't. It fell on deaf ears because in this chamber those opposite delayed the Housing Australia Future Fund for at least 12 months. When it was finally passed in September 2023, we scrambled to get agreements out the door. Currently we have 28,000 homes that are in planning stages or under construction as a result of passing that legislation. Full credit goes to the Minister for Housing in the other place, who has done her level best to get these deals done and signed and out the door. We as a government have invested $43 billion in homes for Australia. That is the most any Commonwealth government has invested in living memory.

It's not just the Housing Australia Future Fund; there is also the Home Guarantee Scheme. This was a coalition legacy, and, because it was a good policy, we retained it and we improved on it. It allows entrants a five per cent deposit and eliminates lenders mortgage insurance. What we found was that it was taken up, so we expanded the remit of it. We allowed not just first home owners but their relatives—for example, parents, guardians, friends, de factos and so on—to help the first home buyer into the housing market, expanding its eligibility. What we found was that, in a relatively short period of time, over 100,000 Australians entered the housing market through the Home Guarantee Scheme.

As a result, we went to the May election expanding that even further. We increased the income caps and the price caps on the homes people could buy. Essentially, we said to first home buyers, 'You can enter the housing market with as little as a five per cent deposit,' and, 'We are ring fencing 100,000 homes at a cost of $10 billion just for you—for first home buyers and not for anyone else.' And Australians responded to that policy.

But that was not all; we also have the build-to-rent reforms. These were delayed by several months in this chamber—unconscionable, in a housing crisis. Build-to-rent is another housing model. It will increase housing supply by around 80,000. Of those homes, 10 per cent—8,000—will be social and affordable homes. And build-to-rent is different; it has security of tenure. Five-year leases— (Time expired)

Deputy President, I add my congratulations for your election to an important role in supporting the chamber. It hasn't taken Labor all that long to slip back into their old habits. We see the same thing again and again and again. Rather than take responsibility for their policy failures and the things they claimed they were going to do, they simply try to fob them off, blame somebody else, deflect or talk about something else.

Even when taking note of answers, we've had the government talking about things that are completely separate from the questions that were put to them by coalition senators. I will give Senator Ananda-Rajah credit for actually addressing the housing issue, but what she and the government have failed to do is acknowledge what Treasury did when it belled the cat—that they are not going to build the 1.2 million homes that they've promised. They can talk all they like about their aspiration, but there are some practical realities out there in the market that they are not going to meet. In fact, they're going to build fewer houses than were built in the five years prior to 2025. They will build fewer houses than the coalition built in its last five years in government. So they can talk all they like about what we did or didn't do, but one thing we did do was manage to get new houses built.

It's not just me saying this. Last Saturday night, the leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania said during his post-election speech that new builds are at some of the lowest levels they have been at for many years. This is the Labor leader in Tasmania, in his speech on election night, saying that new builds are at their lowest levels for many years. This verifies what Treasury has said and what we've been saying—that this government will build fewer houses in the five years to 2030 than we did in our last five years. They spent two or three years faffing around with the policy.

You cannot believe what this government says. We've seen it before. We remember the $275 reduction in energy bills that was promised by the Labor Party. It was never delivered and never will be. We just see increases in prices. They promised a lower cost of living; well, the cost-of-living crisis is still with us. They live in this fantasy world where everything will be fine if they get up and trot out their talking points. That's not what the Australian people want. The Australian people want the government to deliver on its promises.

They need to have sensible promises, they need to have policy that will deliver on those promises and they need to not do what they did in the last parliament, which was to put in place a whole range of reforms which are working against the economy and working against the promises that they've made. I talk to people in the construction industry, the industry that I spent 25 years in before coming to this place, and they lament what this government has done to them—inhibiting their capacity to build houses. Building houses is what the government wants!

It is about time this government actually started telling the Australian people the truth. It's about time this government started keeping its promises to the Australian people. The Australian people cannot believe a thing that this government tells them. Those opposite make all these promises. They come in here with their spin, their deflection and their blaming of somebody else, but this government was re-elected on the basis of a whole range of promises as to the things that they were going to do. They didn't deliver on their key promises in the last parliament, and what we will continue to do is to make sure that they keep the promises they made in the lead-up to this parliament, because that's the least they could do for the Australian people.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Waters) today relating to the Woodside North West Gas project.

This government has just been given a significant electoral majority in the lower house by the Australian people. I know that a lot of people who voted for the Labor Party in the House would have been progressive voters, and many of them would have expected the government to tackle the big challenges of our time, like climate change. And what was the first thing they did when they got into government? They approved, out to 2070, the biggest, dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history, Woodside's North West Shelf Project Extension. And it wasn't just an election that was happening around the same time the government approved this—and may I say, Mr Peter Dutton said he would approve it within a month if he were made Prime Minister; Minister Watt and the Prime Minister were able to beat him by two weeks and approve this within 16 days of forming government—we were witnessing a climate breakdown on both the west coast and the east coast at the same time.

Now, I know where Woodside's plant is; I know where Murujuga is. I grew up near there, as a child. It's beautiful country. This summer, in your home state, Deputy President, the water temperature off that coastline, as far out as places like the Montebello Islands, got to 38 degrees Celsius. We have witnessed mass coral bleaching that has never been seen before off the west coast of Australia—in places like Ningaloo, a World Heritage area. At the same time, on the east coast, we were witnessing an eighth mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef—the eighth since 1998, when we had the first recorded marine heatwave. On the south coast of Australia there's a toxic algal bloom, primarily driven by another marine heatwave.

So Minister Watt and Mr Albanese decided to approve this project. By the way, this project will run until Minister Watt is 97 years old, if he's lucky enough to live to a grand old age. He will be 97 years old when this project finishes. He came and approved this project, knowing that the west coast reefs were bleaching and that we would lose habitat for our precious marine life. He approved it knowing that the Great Barrier Reef was also bleaching. We heard that on Lizard Island the coral mortality is up to 96 per cent of that most stunning, beautiful, World-Heritage-listed reef. We've already discussed in the chamber today the terrible situation unfolding where a toxic algal bloom has got hold in an area that was considered a refuge on the Great Southern Reef—one that until this time had escaped some of the worst changes we've seen from climate change, like the loss of our giant kelp forests and the rise of marine invasive species.

Minister Watt approved this, knowing this. The big question is: Why? Why did this government, as its first act, approve the biggest and dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history? That's what I would like to get to the bottom of, and I'm sure a lot of Australians who voted for the Labor Party would like to know why as well. Well, we know that Woodside Petroleum rules the roost in this place. It's not just the LNP that has a nice, cosy relationship with Woodside, especially over in Western Australia. We've seen it. And it's not just Woodside; it's Santos; it's a number of fossil fuel companies in this place. Why else would a government, as its first act, give something to a company like Woodside? Why would they be happy to sell future generations of this country down the river to do a favour for a big multinational corporation based out of Perth?

This is to be continued. Five minutes is nowhere near enough time today to get to the bottom of this. But I tell you what: people know that we are seeing a breakdown in our physical world now. You can run, but you can't hide from it. Every decision that is made in this place by our government will be scrutinised not just by the Australian Greens in this Senate but by the Australian people.

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 13 May 2025, of Dr Alan Eggleston AM, a senator for the state of Western Australia from 1996 to 2014.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 13 May 2025, of Dr Alan Eggleston AM, former senator for Western Australia, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

I'll begin my remarks by saying that I did not know Dr Eggleston personally. We missed one another by just 12 months, actually, in terms of his departure from the Senate and my arrival. But there is no doubt in my mind that he was not only someone who made a significant contribution to this place, to public life nationally and in Western Australia in particular; he was also someone who had a deep and abiding commitment to public service. He obviously carried the respect not just of his Liberal and coalition colleagues but also of the people that he served as a medical professional in Port Hedland for nearly 22 years and as a mayor.

Alan Eggleston was born and grew up in Busselton until he became a boarder at Christ Church Grammar School for seven years from 1953 to 1959. As a young man he determined to study medicine, despite some of the prejudices held by people in the medical profession at the time who clearly should have known better. I understand that Dr Eggleston was not someone who would go out of his way to discuss his condition of dyschondroplasia. There's a line that I read in Samantha Maiden's excellent 2014 Herald Sun profile piece on Dr Eggleston which ran just before he gave his valedictory speech in this chamber. Regarding his condition, he said:

It's strangers that I find make comment, not people I know … Especially children, who are naturally curious. Sometimes people get excessively curious.

He goes on, in this same article, to explain that he tells them to get lost, although he uses more colourful language that we shouldn't repeat in this place! I think he somewhat underserved himself with that line.

I read the Western Australia Liberal Party's tribute to him after his passing in May of this year, and I was struck by what Dr Eggleston said to the selection panel when he was applying to study medicine at the University of Western Australia. The panel had some concerns about young Alan Eggleston. They asked him if his height would cause problems and whether he'd be able to do things like treat a patient on a high bed. This was his reply: 'Where other doctors need take no steps, I might have to take two. Where other doctors have to take one step, I might have to take three or four. If I find a terminally ill patient on a high bed, I will stand on a stool to care for that person. At Royal Perth Hospital, I will do the same.' Those words alone should have put paid to any doubts that the selection panel may have held. This was somebody who was undeniably suited to the medical profession.

He was clearly incredibly public spirited and a person of very good character. It is a great shame that some at Royal Perth Hospital at the time failed to treat Alan Eggleston with the respect that he deserved. But the hospital's loss of a young and promising medical graduate turned out to be the gain of the royal medical college in London and then the gain of the British public for four years and then of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and then of the communities in the Pilbara and Port Hedland. I understand he planned to stay in the Pilbara for six months but ended up staying there for the next 22 years. In doing so, he more than lived up to his reply that he had given to the selection committee at RPH.

As a general practitioner, he made a significant contribution to the health of his community and to the health of Indigenous people, in particular. This was, by any measure, an extensive contribution to the public good in and of itself. But Dr Eggleston was also interested in public life. After being elected to the Port Hedland town council in 1988, serving as mayor from 1993 to 1996, and being extensively involved in the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party since 1974, it was perhaps unsurprising that a person who had already made such a public contribution would be elected as a senator for Western Australia in 1996. As he said in his own valedictory in 2014, the Senate is the house of review, and he made a notable contribution in this place through the committee process.

To say that he worked hard as the chair of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Legislation Committee; the Senate economics committee; and the Senate foreign affairs, defence and trade committee would be to understate it. He dealt with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the cross-media ownership pact and many other pieces of legislation. As chair of the Senate economics committee, he delivered 98 reports in his first year. This amounted to almost two reports a week, and by any objective standard this was a very serious program of legislative review and policy work.

Senator Eggleston took that enthusiasm to the Institute of Public Affairs, which the government can at least acknowledge as an influential institution on the conservative side of politics. While we do come from different political traditions, I salute Senator Eggleston as someone who, in good faith and with love of country, made a significant contribution to public debate. It is the kind of weighty contribution that many on both sides of the chamber would be proud to make to their respective side of politics. I should acknowledge that Senator Eggleston remained an active Liberal after he retired. He was awarded life membership of the Liberal Party, proclaimed as a legend, I understand, by the Christ Church Grammar School Old Boys' Association, and in 2019 was awarded membership of the Order of Australia.

I would like to finish by drawing attention to a former member of this place Senator Mitch Fifield and his touching tribute to Dr Eggleston as a friend and colleague. He said:

Eggy was a great, thoughtful and generous colleague in the Senate. One thing I loved was after about 8pm in the Senate he would change into a dark turtle-neck under his jacket. When asked why, he replied 'I always live in hope of a jazz bar'.

Madam President, I echo Senator Fifield's sentiments. I don't think Senator Eggleston was alone in the hope of a jazz bar popping up somewhere in this place after 8 pm.

On behalf of the government, I recognise Senator Alan Eggleston's significant contribution to public health, public life, policy thinking and development. As the Minister for the NDIS, I particularly want to pay tribute to him as someone who refused to allow others to define him by his condition and who rose above petty prejudice to make a real and meaningful contribution to the lives of others. My heartfelt condolences and those of all of us on this side of the house go out to his family, his friends and former colleagues in this place and the wider Liberal Party who admired him very deeply.

I rise on behalf of the opposition to pay tribute to the life and, without a doubt, distinguished service of former senator Dr Alan Eggleston. Senator McAllister, thank you. Those words really do mean a lot to the Western Australian Liberal Party, but, more than that, there are still some of us, including Senator McKenzie, who is here in the chamber, and Senator Dean Smith, who served with Alan Eggleston. He was fondly known as 'Eggy'—nothing more and nothing less. But I did appreciate your words when you said—and I'm going to paraphrase you here—that he was from the 'old school' of doing things. Those who have been here for a very long time will know what that means. It was never about personality; it was only ever about policy, about standing up for what you believed in, about representing the state that sent you here, but, more than that, about working across the aisle to achieve the best outcome for the people of Australia. So, again, Senator McAllister, we do really appreciate those words on behalf of the government.

He was a remarkable Western Australian. As I go through his journey, I hope that does become incredibly evident to the people who may be listening in or who will read this speech in the years ahead. He was a proud Liberal. He was without a doubt and, I think, from a very early age, because of his small stature—he did have a form of dwarfism, achondroplasia—a man of principle, very much so. His stature did not define him. I knew Eggy for at least 35 years—in fact, possibly longer. I can honestly say to the Senate—and I'm sure Senator Dean Smith, Senator Brockman, Senator McKenzie and Senator O'Sullivan would agree with me—that Eggy never once raised that with us, never once. When he came into the chamber he would have his little stand and, if he was going to speak, he would kick it over—remember?—and jump onto it, straight up to the microphone and off he'd go. Nothing stopped him.

His life without a doubt was marked by service. Eggy was a man who, despite his small stature, when he walked into a room literally did become larger than life. That was just the way he approached life. He appreciated the opportunities that were given to him that he fought so hard for. He was a man of great kindness. As I said, as I go through this speech, it will take people on the journey of Alan's life of service and of his quiet dignity. But I think, more than anything, we know Alan from this place. The Western Australian Liberals know him also from Western Australia. But certainly, when it comes to Port Hedland, they are the people who knew him for his kindness. Over the course of his 18 years in the Senate and, indeed, throughout his entire life, Alan without a doubt demonstrated a commitment to the values of fairness, opportunity and duty.

We were lucky enough in Western Australia. Alan's family, because many of them are overseas, decided to have a private funeral. Obviously that is always a choice for the family. But what they then offered to those who wanted to be part of a celebration of Alan's life was just that. They had a service at the Christ Church Grammar School, and it was truly incredible. It was attended by hundreds of people. As a politician, clearly I stood outside to shake everybody's hands as they came through but, more than that, to talk to them, and what I loved more than anything was that everybody who walked through was in high spirits. They were there to celebrate Eggy's life. Yes, he has passed, but, wow, isn't it wonderful to come together and swap stories with people? And, Senator McAllister, I will pick up on those comments in particular: those who studied with him and were there at the time when those words were said to him were very honest about how they felt at the time—how offended they were on behalf of Alan Eggleston but also how much they admired him when all he did was jump on a plane, go to the UK and qualify there. It was as simple as that.

He was born and raised in Busselton, so he was always a country boy. He attended Busselton Primary School and then, as we've heard, Christ Church Grammar School in Perth. He was a boarder, because he was from the country, between 1953 and 1959. The wonderful thing about Alan, even at a very early age—as I said, he was very small in stature, but it just never worried Alan, and that, as many said at the celebration of his life, was because of his parents. His parents never made any excuses for him. They just told him: 'We're treating you like your brother and sisters. Get on with life, and we will support you in doing that.' Any challenge that was ever thrown Alan's way was met with courage and humour—qualities that would then serve him so well throughout his professional and public life, as well as his personal life.

As we've heard—and I think it is important to repeat this—Alan's path to medicine was not straightforward. When he was applying to study at the University of Western Australia the selection panel expressed concern—I know this was decades ago, but it is very confronting—that his height might present 'practical challenges in the clinical setting'. Whenever you spoke to Alan about this—when you hear from some of the doctors who had studied with him at the time, so were there in that class and who had maintained a friendship throughout decades, even they're still touched today by what Alan's profound answer was. There was no shouting, there was no screaming, there was no 'How dare you do this to me!' As we've heard, Alan offered a simple yet profound answer that I hope, in later life, shamed those who at that time made the comments to him. He merely said: 'When other doctors need to take no steps, I might have to take two. Where others have to take one step, I might have to take three or four. If I find a terminally ill patient on a high bed, I will stand on a stool to care for that person.' And as we've heard, yes, he was duly admitted. He graduated in medicine, not just becoming a doctor—and, again, this is part of Alan's journey when he went up to Port Hedland for six months and stayed 22 years—but also becoming a formidable advocate for the people he served, in particular for the most vulnerable and for those most in need in Port Hedland at the time.

In 1974, a short six-month stint in the Pilbara became a 22-year commitment to the people of Port Hedland and the wider region. In fact, so many were touched by Alan's passing—we in the WA Liberal Party were absolutely devastated because we loved him and we appreciated him—but I have to say the response from the people in Port Hedland was incredible. Many here probably don't know, but Alan basically, as we used to joke, delivered every baby ever had in Port Hedland. Throughout Alan's life, when he walked down the streets of Port Hedland, he'd meet a mum: 'Hi, Alan. You delivered small Johnny.' Years later 'small Johnny' would walk down the road: 'Alan, how are you going? You delivered me and, by the way, you just delivered my daughter.' That is the Alan Eggleston that we all knew.

It's a well-known fact that his medical practice became an anchor in the community. His contribution to Indigenous health in particular—that was actually where Alan found his passion and excelled—left a lasting, positive legacy.

He also didn't limit his service to the consulting room. His deep concern for his community led him into local government, serving on the Port Hedland town council from 1988 and as mayor from 1993 to 1996. His broader commitment to regional development saw him serve on the board of the Pilbara Development Commission. He very much was someone who understood the unique challenges and the opportunities of regional Australia. He dedicated his efforts—and they were absolutely his lifelong passion—to advocating for those communities that he felt were so overlooked.

Parallel to his professional and civic life was, of course, Alan's unwavering dedication to the Liberal Party. From 1974, he was a stalwart of the party's Kalgoorlie North division, representing the Pilbara and Kimberley regions. His leadership within the party spanned decades. He was a member of the state council from 1976, a divisional president from 1980 until 1984 and again from 1992 until 1996, and a state vice-president between 1983 and 1987. I think his long service to our policy committee, from 1988 until 2008, speaks to his enduring influence on the party's direction and priorities.

His first time as a Senate candidate was at the 1987 double dissolution, standing in what was then considered an unwinnable sixth position on the Liberal ticket. His election to the Senate came in 1996 when, after two competitive preselection processes, he emerged as a unifying candidate in third position. He was comfortably elected, and so began the 18-year career that Alan Eggleston had in this place. Again, his preselection victories and his record in office are testament to the respect he commanded within the Liberal family and the broader Western Australian community.

Alan's Senate career reflected his deep-seated convictions. He was a proud Western Australia federalist—long may that reign—a champion of regional communities and a principled Liberal. As a team player through the years of the Howard government and in opposition thereafter, Alan, as we've heard, brought his characteristic diligence and thoroughness to his parliamentary work. He served with distinction on numerous Senate committees, including as chair of a legislation committee for eight years. His long-term membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade reflected his broader policy interests and his commitment to Australia's security and place in the world. To go back to the humility, he never, ever sought the spotlight. He never spoke—unlike, perhaps, some of us today—for the sake of speaking. But when he spoke, in particular in this place—it didn't matter who you were or where you were from—you listened because you knew that his words were considered and grounded in experience. But it was just Alan. They were delivered without malice.

He continued to engage with the Liberal Party at all levels, attending divisional conferences, state council meetings and party events. In fact, after his retirement from this place in 2014, Alan remained a valued source of wise counsel and a dedicated supporter of the party he served so well. In recognition of his contribution, Alan was awarded life membership of the Liberal Party. In 2017 he was recognised as a legend by the Christ Church Grammar School Old Boys' Association, and in 2019 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to the Parliament of Australia, to regional development and to medicine.

Those of us who had the privilege—there are only a few of us left—to serve alongside Senator Dr Alan Eggleston, or 'Eggy', as he was so fondly known in this chamber, will remember him as a colleague of great kindness, decency and wisdom. His humility was only matched by his generosity of spirit. He was driven not by ego or ambition but by a deep sense of responsibility to his constituents, to his state and to the nation. His life was marked by service in its purest form. Whether it was tending to patients in the heat and dust of Port Hedland, guiding local government, shaping Liberal Party policy or contributing to the deliberations of this Senate, Alan gave himself fully. He exemplified the quiet virtues of public life, patience, resilience and a steadfast belief in the value of service over self.

He was a man of considerable warmth. He was fondly remembered by all who knew him as a kind, unselfish and wise individual. These qualities made him respected not only as a senator but as a treasured friend and mentor. He brought people together, bridged divides and quietly reinforced the better angles of our political culture.

For me, personally, having served alongside Alan, I can say without hesitation that his contribution enriched the Australian Senate, the Liberal Party and parliament as a whole. His life stands as a powerful reminder that integrity, humility and service endure long after titles and offices are left behind. Alan's passing is a loss deeply felt by his family, his friends, his former colleagues and many communities he touched across Western Australia and beyond.

To his loved ones we extend our heartfelt condolences. May they draw comfort from knowing that his legacy is one of profound significance—a life well lived in the service of others. May he rest in peace.

I'd like to associate the National Party with the comments of both the government and the opposition leader on the condolence motion before the Senate chamber today. I rise on behalf of the National Party to honour and pay tribute to the late Dr Alan Eggleston AM, a distinguished Western Australian, a champion for regional communities and a former colleague of mine in this chamber.

Before entering public office, Alan trained and worked as a medical doctor. What was intended as a six-month placement in the Pilbara in 1974 became a 22-year commitment to that region and its people. He delivered care in some of the most remote and logistically challenging communities in the country, earning the trust of those he served and gaining a depth of experience that was to serve him in this place for many years. His decision to stay past that six-month placement speaks to a reality well understood by the coalition that, when professionals are encouraged to experience life in the regions, many choose to stay and contribute.

Alan brought this grounded perspective with him into public life. He began in local government, serving as a councillor and later as mayor of Port Hedland—a role in which he was known for his steady leadership and pragmatic approach to community needs. When Alan entered the Senate in 1996, he brought with him the experience of someone who had worked closely with people—humans—and who understood the direct impact of policy decisions made in this place on those who live, work and raise a family far away. His contributions in this place were shaped by a clinical eye for detail and an appreciation for the day-to-day realities of Australians living outside our capital cities.

Over the next 18 years, Alan proved himself a steadfast Western Australian federalist and a constructive member of the Liberal Party team throughout the Howard government and the years of opposition that followed. His parliamentary service was both extensive and substantive. Eggy served on a wide range of Senate committees—most notably on the procedure committee for the entirety of the Howard years, where he played a key role in upholding the Senate's procedural integrity and ensuring its operations remained fair, orderly and effective, which is something I hope we all would aspire to continue to do today. He was also a long-serving member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, contributing to Australia's strategic and international policy deliberations with a measured and thoughtful voice.

I had the great privilege to serve alongside Eggy on Senate committees and in this chamber. He was always a very staunch constitutional champion—old school—and was actually one of five senators who crossed the floor in the Abbott government years to stand up for our Constitution and to vote against the recognition of local governments. I know Senator Dean Smith—who is in the chamber today—and I, and a handful of others were in protection of our founding document on that day, and Eggy was with us. He was a colleague marked by discipline, humility and conviction. He brought a clinician's clarity and a methodical focus and was always concerned with outcomes, not theatrics. He'd be quite challenged, I'd say, by this week!

Alan also overcame personal challenges that shaped but never defined his public life. He faced obstacles in his life that many of us will never encounter, both practical and social. But he approached these challenges, as Senator Cash has eloquently outlined, with quiet determination. He never sought sympathy, never asked for exception and never allowed them to overshadow his work. He just simply got on with the job. His service was a quiet yet powerful reminder that capability, not circumstance, defines an individual's contribution.

To his family, friends, former staff and colleagues in the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party: I and the National Party offer you our deepest condolences. Alan was widely respected across this chamber. He brought honour to the Senate, depth to its deliberations and decency to its day-to-day workings. On behalf of the Nationals, I honour the life and work of Dr Alan Eggleston—doctor, mayor, senator and servant of the people. His legacy is found in the betterment of his state and our nation and in the very lives of those he touched across the decades of his quiet, determined public service. May he rest in peace.

We will go back to the condolence motion later, and I understand there is an informal speaking order, which I'm assuming we will also honour.

Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Whiteaker to make her first speech and ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her.

Thank you, President. Congratulations on your re-election. It's great to have a Western Australian woman in the chair. It is an honour to deliver my inaugural speech to this great chamber in this extraordinary building on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I acknowledge that this is their country. I also acknowledge the traditional custodians of the many First Nations lands across my home state of Western Australia. How lucky we are to live on the lands of our First Nations people, who so generously share it with us. It always was and always will be Aboriginal land. I congratulate my fellow new senators and thank everyone here for their welcomes. I especially want to thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Hon. Penny Wong, for warmly welcoming me to the team.

In many ways, my story is unremarkable, a story not dissimilar to the stories of many other young Australians: a girl who grew up in a regional town and then the outer suburbs, educated in public schools, the first in my family to go to university, an eldest daughter through and through, and now a working mum to an adorable and very charming toddler, sharing the parenting load with my husband. But I think in many ways that's what makes our democracy so remarkable—that the election of ordinary people to this place is possible.

When I reflect on what has brought me here, I can't help but feel that the story began before I was even born. My grandfather, William Brian Whiteaker, tells me he believes my interest in labour politics comes from his grandmother, Elizabeth Cunningham. At barely five foot, she was known as a pocket-sized dynamo. Elizabeth moved from Scotland to the town of Collie in south-west WA in 1928 with her husband and their daughter. For over 40 years, she worked tirelessly in social and community work for her town. She was vice-president of the Red Cross, a founding member of the Combined Mining Unions Scholarship Committee and the town's first-ever woman justice of the peace. She dedicated her life to helping those who needed it, running unemployment support services and soup kitchens and advocating for children and people with disability. She fought for many years to establish the Glenlee Occupation Centre, the first special needs education centre in the town. It wasn't an easy fight, and she came up against heavy opposition from the Department of Education. When the centre finally opened, the education minister at the time said of her, 'She's only a little woman, but she packs a powerful punch.'

She was also a devoted Labor Party member—vice-president and treasurer of the women's branch, secretary of the Labor Women's Organisation and a delegate to the district council. I grew up hearing stories of her from my granddad. I know he admired and loved her dearly. She went on to inspire many Labor and union activists in the generations of our family that followed, me especially. I hope I can bring just some of her tenacity to my time in this place. To be here is a privilege, one which, as my granddad reminds me often, my great-great-grandmother could only have dreamed of.

I spent much of my childhood in Kalgoorlie, on Wongatha country. It was idyllic in many ways. I spent much of it bossing around my three younger siblings. We'd often dig holes in the red dirt at the very back of our yard, hoping we might strike the gold that Kalgoorlie was so famous for—we never did. We rode our bikes up and down the cul-de-sac where we lived, explored the bush at the back of our street and spent endless summers in our neighbour's pool. I know now that life was not so easy for my parents. They never let us know this at the time, but my mum has since told me of times she would skip dinner so we could eat more. They worked hard and sacrificed a lot for us, and I'll always be grateful.

It was while living in Kalgoorlie that I first observed real inequality; it was right in front of me: classmates bouncing from foster home to foster home, kids coming to school without a lunch box, and friends not having a jumper to wear in the winter. I felt very deeply that this was unfair, and I often wondered what more could be done to give a helping hand to the people who needed it the most. It's these early observations that drew me to the great Australian Labor Party—the party dedicated to economic justice; the party that has fought for it and delivered it under successive Labor governments; the party that started Medicare so that it's your Medicare card, not your credit card, that determines the health care you receive; the party that built our social security system so that, when people can't work, they can get by; and the party that has invested in public education so that every kid can go to a great school, regardless of their circumstances.

When I was 10, my family took a road trip across the Nullarbor. I could talk for days about this trip. It's filled with some of my greatest childhood memories: my little brother carting around his toy whipper snipper everywhere we went, my sister and I forcing our grandparents to listen to Hi-5 in the car for hours on end and my very, very trendy bright-orange three-quarter zip-off pants. But there's one moment that feels especially relevant today. When we got here, to Canberra, I was desperate to visit Parliament House. None of my siblings were particularly interested, and so they stayed behind with our grandparents at the caravan park while Mum, Dad and I came here. I was awe-struck. I remember thinking to myself: 'This is the place where change can happen. The people in this building can make a difference.' I hope that I never lose that feeling, that I never stop being awe-struck by this building and that I always appreciate not only its beauty but the significance of the work that we do here and the potential of what we can achieve as representatives and as legislators.

Shortly after that trip we left Kalgoorlie and moved to Perth's southern suburbs in the City of Rockingham. My high-school experience was a little unusual. Comet Bay College was a brand-new school, and I was part of the first 300-odd student cohort. We never had students older than us. It was there that my love of politics really blossomed. One of my teachers, Mrs MacPherson, saw my interest and turned it into something real. She introduced me to my then local member of parliament and now minister in the Western Australian government, the Hon. Paul Papalia. To Paul: thank you for giving me my first real glimpse into the Labor Party.

My time at Comet Bay is filled with brilliant memories, and I'm so proud to have been its first head girl and the first in line to graduate from the school in 2010. It felt like an obvious choice to go on to study law at the University of Western Australia, so I was thrilled when I was accepted. But, to be honest, I struggled at university. I was the only student from my school to go to UWA. I had few friends. The trip in, each day, was long—three buses and a train. I had gone from being a big fish in a small pond to being a tiny fish in a giant pond. I ended up horribly depressed and I dropped out. It was then that I applied for the Labour Movement Internship run out of the office of former senator and then leader of the government the Hon. Chris Evans. From the very first day, I knew I had found my home in the labour movement. To Chris: thank you for taking a chance on me all those years ago, for welcoming me as one of the 'Chris Evans kids' and for setting me on this path.

Shortly after, I found my political family in the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union when Steve McCartney offered me the job of my dreams. He took a chance on me, a very young and very inexperienced but very keen campaigner with a passion for justice and a fire in the belly. Steve, you have backed me in every day since then, and without you I would not be here. Thank you.

It's safe to say that my time as an organiser at the AMWU was a steep learning curve. Organising in new shops is hard, and it was slow progress. But it taught me how to be an advocate, how to organise and the power of collective action. It opened my eyes to some of the, frankly, quite evil stuff that goes on in small workshops to vulnerable workers with no union representation. I worked with migrant women, highly educated and exceptionally talented, working in labs where their skills weren't recognised, their contribution was undervalued and they were often bullied relentlessly by their male bosses. On one of my first days on the job, I sat with two women in the lunch room. They told me they both had master's degrees. One of them had a PhD. They were doing highly technical scientific work but were on terribly low wages. Together, we fought for their first ever union agreement and got them on the path to have their skills recognised at work. It showed me the power in that quiet, hard work of union advocacy, the type that doesn't often grab the media's or the public's attention but that happens in workplaces right across the country every day. That element of union work is so often overlooked. But, really, it's where most of the change happens—slowly, quietly, bit by bit. It's this approach to achieving change that I hope to bring here in this place.

The AMWU believes that unionism is not just about representing members in their workplaces, although they do that very well, but for making a difference in the community, standing up for those most marginalised and being a part of the political conversation. The WA branch lives these values every day through their charity, community and party work. It's a union that has led the way on progressive social change and a union bold on economic policy. It's these values, this agenda, that I will fight for every day in this place.

My union has long been campaigning to restore Australia's manufacturing industry. I'm so proud that the Albanese government has a bold plan on manufacturing, a commitment to a future made in Australia. Ships, solar panels, batteries, wind turbines—we can make it all here and more. I believe our country is better when government comes to the table and invests in the industries we need and doesn't just leave it to chance. It's better for workers, it's better for communities and it's better for business.

I was elected assistant secretary of WA Labor in 2018 and then state secretary in 2022. I am proud to have been the first woman to serve as State Secretary of WA Labor, joining only a small number of women party officials ever to be elected around the country, a club that includes my dear friends Jules Campbell, the new member for Morton, and Kate Flanders. It's perhaps not a coincidence that Queenslanders and the Western Australians lead the way. You have both been an important support to me. Thank you.

The Labor Party has given me so much, every opportunity, more than I will ever be able to repay. To the members and volunteers of the WA branch, with whom I've had the pleasure of working alongside and winning alongside for many years: you make winning elections possible. Thank you.

To the unions affiliated with WA Labor: thank you for your support of me, both as state secretary and now. Our party is built on the foundations of union members, and I will always be a champion for your members in this place.

We've had a period of unprecedented success at WA Labor—the two largest majorities of any state government in WA history and the largest ever WA Labor contingent to the federal ALP caucus, a record we set in 2022 and then broke again in May. These were, of course, extremely proud moments. It was particularly special to work alongside Premier Roger Cook, who gave me my first ever relief electorate officer job in his office, and see Western Australians give him the credit he deserves for his leadership.

But it's not just the election wins that I'm proud of. We grew our women's membership from 36 per cent to 45 per cent in my time at party office, the highest of any ALP branch in the country. It didn't happen by chance; we knew that our membership must better reflect the community, and we worked for it. Supporting women in their political activism and getting more women elected to parliament were driving forces behind my work as a party official and will continue to be driving forces here. In my time at WA Labor, we saw our state and federal caucuses grow to and exceed 50 per cent women. We elected the 100th woman to the WA state parliament, my friend the member for Hillarys, Caitlin Collins, and then quite a few more after that. There's always room for more, and I am honoured to join the brilliant group of Labor women parliamentarians, which is ever growing right across the country. It's particularly special to be a part of this Labor Senate team, made up of some 56 per cent women.

There are so many people who helped me in my time as state secretary and have provided support and advice, but I especially want to thank a few: Paul Erickson, Jen Light, Bill Johnston, Member for Perth Patrick Gorman, WA government minister the Hon. Amber-Jade Sanderson, Mark Reed, Luke Clarke, Darren Moss, David Talbot, Rosa Sottile, Ben Hubbard, Michael Cooney, James Booth, Rebecca Tomkinson, Faz Pollard, Stephen Moir, Kevin Brown, John Pirie and Masoud Abshar. Thank you, all.

I worked alongside so many wonderful team members at party office over the years. Thank you to all of you for your dedication to our great party. I especially want to thank Tim Picton, Henny Smith, David Cann, Tom Beyer, now member for Rockingham Magenta Marshall, Laura Rowe, Mark Fahey, Ebony Short, Ally White, Dani Simatos, Shaq Stirling, Danijela Pusaric, Julie Bogle and Lisa Tibbs. You are all brilliant, hardworking and endlessly loyal. And I give an especially big thankyou to the three now former party office stars that have taken the leap and joined me on this next adventure: Brock Oswald, Shudia Forgol and Lexie Moore. I'm very lucky to have you on my team. To Lauren Cayoun—the now Hon. Lauren Cayoun MLC—thank you for being there every day on the wild ride that is being a party official. I wish Mark Reed and Adelaide Kidson all the best as they take on the leadership of the mighty WA branch.

I live now in Beeliar, in the City of Cockburn, with my husband, David, who also happens to be the local state member of parliament, and our son, William. Beeliar is a Noongar word meaning 'river' or 'water running through'. It's an apt description of our part of the world, surrounded by lakes, wetlands and a stunning coastline. It's a place we are lucky to call home.

It's also home to the world-class defence and industrial hub on the Henderson strip, a place that has an important role to play in the future of our country and a place at the centre of the Albanese government's agenda. This focus brings so much opportunity right on our doorstep—the opportunity to be at the heart of our nation's strategic defence future and to support security and stability in our region. The Albanese government sees this potential and is investing in it. There will be billions of dollars invested into the precinct and thousands of jobs created over the next decade. With those opportunities, of course, come challenges—critical infrastructure, skills, housing and accommodating the defence and non-defence industries on the strip—but these are challenges we are well equipped to tackle, and I look forward to being a part of that work in my time here. I know that, under the leadership of our prime minister and deputy prime minister, Labor will continue its legacy as the true party of Australia's national defence.

Of course, it's not just defence where Western Australia pulls its weight. In two other ways, we well and truly bat above average: the strength of our economy and the beauty of our natural environment. For a long time, the WA economy has powered the nation. It is strong and it is resilient. In the years ahead, WA's role in the national economy will become even more important. WA is rich in the resources that are crucial to keeping the national economy strong and to decarbonising not just our country but our region. This is an opportunity we must take with both hands, but it can't come at the expense of the stunning natural environment WA is also famous for, an environment which belongs to an ancient culture and which is worthy of protecting, an environment which relies on our moving to a cleaner economy in the years to come.

There is a third area in which we are above average, but this one is in the worst of ways. WA is home to some of the most disadvantaged people in our country. Poverty in Western Australia is rising. Almost 400,000 Western Australians, including over 90,000 children, live in poverty right now. This is most acutely felt in much of regional and remote WA and in Aboriginal communities, some of the most disadvantaged places in our country, where too many families can't meet their basic needs, where health and mental health outcomes are poor and where economic opportunity is limited. The contrast is stark in parts like the Pilbara, where the mining and resources industry booms but where socioeconomic scores are significantly lower than the rest of the nation, and in the Kimberley, where our environment is at its most spectacular but where health outcomes are some of the poorest in the country.

None of these three things—keeping our economy strong and resilient, protecting our natural environment and addressing disadvantage—are easy challenges to tackle, and they don't always fit neatly side by side, but we must prioritise all three. This is work the Albanese government is already doing—growing our economy by creating jobs, getting wages moving again and bringing inflation down; protecting our environment by enshrining emissions targets in law, making record investment in clean energy and soon establishing the first independent national environmental protection agency; and helping those doing it tough with cost-of-living relief and more free health care and just this week delivering a significant boost in funding to financial wellbeing and emergency relief services. Real opportunity no matter your postcode, better health care everywhere, better schools everywhere and good, well-paying jobs everywhere—I am optimistic about this future, and I will always fight for it. It's a future we can be proud to be a part of for the kids who are now riding their bikes up and down the cul-de-sac in Kalgoorlie and the kids finding their feet and persevering through hardship in the Pilbara or the Kimberley.

Finally, there are so many people who deserve thanks and to whom I owe a great deal. I'm sure one of the things we in this chamber have in common is that none of us got here on our own. Thank you to my predecessor, Louise Pratt. Louise gave her heart and soul to this place, and I thank her for supporting me for many years. Thank you to my dear friends who have made the long trip to be here today, who also happen to be AMWU comrades: Ashley Buck, Claire Comrie, Katrina Stratton and Stuart Aubrey. Thank you to my two new team members, Leandro Stewart-Usher and Tania McCartney. To Darcy Gunning, thank you for your support in getting me here. Sally Talbot, thank you for being a mentor and friend, for always taking my calls and for being a voice of sound advice and reason. Thank you to Jon for your delicious cooking and for always being an ear. To Senator Nita Green: to be here with one of my dearest friends feels almost too good to be true. Thank you for your wisdom and friendship. To the eldest daughters club, Amy and Steph, who have also made the long trip to be here today: your friendship means the world to me. To the glorious matriarchy, Bec, Amy, Laura, Alex, Steph, Abbey, Rex and Bek: in times when political advocacy and activism is hard, you make it bearable.

To my grandparents, Shirley and Brian, who I know wish could be here today but are watching from home: you are my biggest cheerleaders, and I love you. David and I very much rely on the support of our families—unfairly, we often worry—to do the work we have chosen to do. For us it really does take a village. Our son, William, is lucky to be surrounded by cousins who adore him and who he adores right back. Keighton, Alfie, Lily, Lana and Matteo, I love you all very much. To my mother-in-law, Cathie, and my sister and brother-in-law, Elizabeth and Jonathon, thank you for your love and support. To my brothers, Thomas and Isaac, thank you for never letting me get too big for my boots and for always cheering me on. To my sister-in-law, Leah, thank you for joining our big crazy family. My sister Madeleine—I've always felt a little sad for women who don't have a sister—you've always been my best friend. Thank you for always being there for me. Dad, thank you for always believing in me and encouraging me to believe in myself. Mum, you sacrificed a lot for us, and still you will, and often do, drop anything for your kids and grandkids. None of us would be where we are without you. Thank you.

And, finally, to the two most important people in my life. My husband, David Scaife: today marks 13 years since our very first date, so happy anniversary! Early in our relationship, David wrote in a postcard to me from Hawaii, 'I think that at the end of every bad day there should be a Hawaiian rainbow.' That postcard still sits on my desk. David, you are my Hawaiian rainbow. On bad days and good days, knowing you're in my corner is everything. I'm proud of the life we have together, as crazy as two politicians in one household might be.

And to my son, my darling William: firstly, I'm very impressed you've sat through this whole speech. In an early draft of this speech, I wrote that I hope one day when you grow up you might come to understand that the reason your mum spent so much time on the other side of the country from you was to be a part of shaping a better future for you and other kids like you. But that's not really true, because you're one of the lucky ones. And so, instead, I hope one day when you grow up you might come to understand that the reason your mum spent so much time on the other side of the country from you was to be a voice for the kids who are not as lucky as you, for the families without the opportunities that our family has.

Your late grandfather, Roy Scaife, wore a little pin on his lapel every day. It was the light on the hill. Your dad now wears that pin, and I wear it on a pendant. It reminds us, as Ben Chifley said:

… it is the duty and the responsibility of the community, and particularly those more fortunately placed, to see that our less fortunate fellow-citizens are protected from those shafts of fate which leave them helpless and without hope.

That's why I'm here.

Senators, pursuant to order, I now call Senator Blyth to make her first speech and ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her.

Thank you, Madam President. I also extend my sincere thanks to senators and members from across the chamber and the other place who have welcomed me with such kindness and wise counsel. It is with great humility and gratitude that I rise to deliver my first speech to this Senate. I am deeply conscious of the immense privilege that comes with representing my fellow Australians in this chamber. The privilege of standing here carries with it an obligation to listen more than I speak, to reflect and consider before I decide, and to act with integrity and transparency above all else. I am conscious of the duty that I owe to all South Australians whom I have the honour to represent.

I come to this chamber not as a career politician but as an ordinary Australian, a proud South Australian, a wife, a mother and a former small-business owner and education executive with a passion to serve my community. I am the daughter and granddaughter of migrants who travelled great distances in search of a better life. My mother came to Australia from Burma, now Myanmar, along with her Burmese mother and Indian father—my maternal grandparents. I understand I am the first person of Burmese descent to stand in either chamber of our federal parliament. This is a source of immense personal honour. My father arrived in this country as a boy from Britain, together with my paternal grandparents—they were 10-pound Poms.

I grew up in Adelaide in a truly multicultural family, embracing all the strands of my heritage. On Sundays at 5 pm we would have tea with my British grandparents—usually a roast dinner, always followed by pudding for dessert; that was my sister's and my favourite. On other occasions, I remember the gourmet curry feasts with my Indian and Burmese relatives. My Burmese grandmother was a brilliant cook who could whip up a banquet for two dozen people at a moment's notice. Our extended family eagerly embraced Australian life while blending it with old traditions. We would even take curries to the park for picnics; it was our own version of the Aussie barbecue. My parents, Robert and Prunella, raised me to work hard, be honest and help others, and I'm deeply grateful for their ongoing love and support. These formative experiences taught me the importance of family and community and gave me an appreciation for the rich tapestry of cultures that make Australia so special. I hope that my presence here today serves as an example that, in this country, anyone with dedication and a desire to serve can aspire to and achieve public office.

My decision to embark on a career of public service comes from a feeling of responsibility to give back to the country that has given my family and me so much. For more than 20 years I worked in education administration, striving to expand access to quality education and to improve our universities. Throughout my career, I have observed firsthand a deterioration in academic standards and a growing institutional hostility to the values that have made our society what it is. The decline in education standards over the last 20 years is inexcusable. Even more worryingly, young Australians are no longer being taught pride in our nation and its story. Our students can recite our country's flaws at length but have little understanding of its democratic ideals and achievements. This one-sided, negative view of our history does a disservice to our students and to our country. As a country, we are failing to equip our children with the knowledge and skills that they need to thrive in the modern world. Worse, we are undermining their confidence in democracy and representative government.

Contrary to these teachings, I believe profoundly in the goodness and greatness of Australia. To be an Australian is to truly have won the lottery of life. We live in a nation that is the envy of the world. Forged out of hardship on a rugged and inhospitable continent, we have grown into one of the world's most stable, peaceful and prosperous democracies. Every person who calls Australia home has contributed to our national story. From the First Australians, who cared for this land for millennia, to the principles, institutions and culture transplanted from Britain that underpin our democracy and rule of law and to the waves of immigrants from every corner of the globe who have woven their own threads into the Australian fabric, we have all built a remarkable nation, and we are all entitled to be proud of our country and its achievements. My goal is to help restore perspective and pride in our national story—not a blind patriotism but a truthful appreciation of how far we have come as a nation and how fortunate we are to be Australian.

Philosophically, I'm a proud social conservative and an economic liberalist. The strength of any community begins with its most fundamental unit: the family. Families are the first communities we belong to, the first teachers we learn from and the primary guardians of our values and traditions. Social conservatism is, to me, not about resisting change; it is about understanding what works and seeking to improve what does not. We must cherish and uphold institutions like marriage because we know that, when families break down, the entire community suffers. It is incumbent on Australia's leaders to push back against cultural trends that undermine the family unit, whether these be challenges to parental authority and decision-making, the denigration of traditional social values or the excusing of irresponsible or antisocial behaviour. As legislators, we should have the courage to say that family matters. Behind every statistic or policy debate, there are real households trying to raise children, pay bills and pass on their values to the next generation. Strengthening families is not just a cultural or moral goal; it brings tangible social and economic benefits for everyone. Upholding family values is not about living in the past; it is about recognising that stable family structures give children the very best chance in life, and strong community connections contribute to greater social cohesion and stability.

As well as being a social conservative, I am an economic liberalist. Free markets, private enterprise and limited government intervention are the surest path to prosperity for all. As Ronald Reagan famously said:

Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.

When individuals are free to innovate, create and trade, living standards rapidly improve. Australia transformed itself into a prosperous, modern nation in large part by embracing economic reform and allowing individuals and markets to flourish free from the heavy hand of government.

After the missteps of the 1970s, Australia undertook bold market based reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, and we enjoyed nearly three decades of uninterrupted economic growth as a result. This was not an accident or luck; it was the reward for sensible, liberal economic policies that unleashed the latent Australian enterprise and ingenuity. The lesson is clear: as legislators, we must trust people to make their own decisions and give them the freedom and incentive to better themselves and their families. Economic liberalism, properly understood, is not about helping the rich get richer; it is about creating the largest possible economic pie so that we all may benefit. It is about rewarding effort, ingenuity and risk-taking.

Economic liberalism also means insisting on limited government—a government that knows its proper bounds. As Margaret Thatcher instinctively understood, there is a truth we must never forget: the state has no source of money other than the money it appropriates from its people. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from someone else: a worker's pay cheque, a family's grocery budget or a business's profits. Worse, as Milton Friedman warned, too much government poses a risk to the fundamental freedoms that are vital for a prosperous society. No matter how much we may wish government can solve all of our problems, the reality is it cannot. The role of government is not to try to solve our problems but to create the conditions in which freedom and individual enterprise are encouraged and rewarded, allowing people to better themselves. This does not mean that economic liberalism does not have a heart. I support a strong safety net for the vulnerable: those who lose their jobs and those who live with serious disabilities or medical conditions. We must ensure that every Australian, no matter their start in life, has access to education, medical care and the freedom of opportunity to improve their standing in life.

I stand in this chamber because I feel Australia has strayed from these historically proven principles. Recent political leadership has too often given way to poll driven expediency and short-term thinking. A future vision means making decisions in the long-term national interest, not on what is immediately popular. The current approach is a recipe for short-term thinking and poor public policy outcomes. As elected representatives, we must aim to shape public opinion through principled advocacy and honest dialogue. True leadership in this parliament means making hard decisions in the national interest, not sectional interests, and uniting Australians as one, rather than dividing us into ever-smaller competing groups. Now, more than ever, Australia needs leaders with integrity, courage and conviction as well as the humility to admit mistakes.

Many of today's challenges—surging inflation, energy insecurity, declining trust in institutions and social fragmentation—strongly resemble the crises that many democratic countries faced in the 1970s. History points to the solution, even as we studiously avoid learning it. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are revered international leaders and landmark historical figures who faced very similar challenges. Both were prepared to confront economic stagnation and social turmoil with unpopular but necessary policy solutions. They reduced spending, reduced tax and regulation, and sought peace through strength rather than appeasement. Likewise, in Australia, prime ministers Bob Hawke and later John Howard made tough choices and embraced economic reform that transformed an overregulated, high-inflation economy into the envy of the world. I fear that many of us have not learnt the lessons of history.

Australia is currently pursuing unrealistic and unsustainable policy positions that will continue to reduce our standard of living. Our government is spending too much of other people's money. Overregulation has become the defining feature of our economy and way of life. We are creating and encouraging a culture of dependency and helplessness. We are pursuing a net zero policy that is unrealistic and futile, at substantial detriment to our prosperity and living standards. We seem determined upon a deliberate policy of energy, industrial and agricultural poverty. In our schools and universities, under a disastrous centralised curriculum, our young people are increasingly being taught what to think, not how to think. We are teaching our children to be ashamed of the democratic achievements of Western civilisation. We are encouraging young people to view themselves as helpless prey to fortune rather than as strong, independent actors capable of determining their own destinies.

Australians are increasingly being divided into ever smaller groups, encouraged to focus on their differences rather than what unites them. Those who recognise basic biological differences between men and women are demeaned and ostracised by an elite who believes it can cancel reality for the sake of ideology. We are refusing to properly invest in our own defence forces, despite the acknowledgement that we are living through some of the most dangerous strategic circumstances since World War II, and our policy of virtually open-ended immigration risks overwhelming our social fabric, straining housing, infrastructure and public services without any clear plan for integration or sustainability. These policy approaches risk our shared heritage and jeopardise our future prosperity.

As a society we seem too ready to accept infringements upon our freedom for the supposed protection of government. In response to every issue we are assailed by a chorus of calls for government to do more, despite history showing that the more we rely on government, the more we sacrifice our freedom. It is time to be honest with ourselves and with the Australian people. We are all in control of our own destinies. It is time for government to do less so that individual Australians can do more. As a new senator I see it as part of my mission to help restore our core Liberal and conservative principles to the forefront of public policy. I do this not because these principles might be popular but because they are timeless and they are true. These are the principles that have, time and again, made Australia strong and free. This is my promise to the Australian people.

Before closing, I hope to take a moment to thank some of the many people who have helped bring me to this chamber. Regrettably, I cannot name everyone who has assisted me, but I would like to start by thanking the amazing people up in the gallery who have travelled from all over to be with me today. I'm so grateful for your support and for making the effort to come. It means the absolute world to me.

To my grandparents, Lorna and Hubert, Herbert and Kathleen: though you are no longer with us, your spirit certainly is. Each of you took the courageous step of leaving behind the world you knew to come to Australia. In doing so, you gave your descendants opportunities beyond measure. To my husband, David: thank you for your unwavering support and love. As a former Royal Australian Air Force member and active service veteran, you know what it means to serve something greater than yourself. I'm so proud of you and your service to Australia, and I'm grateful for the sacrifices you have made for our family while I pursue this path. To my children, Lucy, James, and Hannah: you are my greatest joy and my inspiration. Lucy, you light up every room you walk into, and I am so proud of you. James, I hope you always keep your passion for learning and your kindness. Hannah, you are stronger than you know. I want you to grow up in an Australia that offers you every opportunity, keeps you safe and nurtures your dreams. To my sister, Kara, her husband, John, and my nephews William and Alexander: thank you for always being there for us. To David's family, who have travelled in from Ballarat, Jodie, Brendan and Jordan: thank you for everything you do for our family.

To Sam, Claire and Thomas Duluk: thank you for being like family to us. To Senator Antic: thank you for your support, your friendship and your encouragement. To our dear friends Lana and Dom: thank you for believing in me. To Belinda, Thea, Ben, Tony, Victoria, Natasha, Moira, Jana, Jacqui and Alex, fellow travellers in social conservatism and true friends: thank you. To my team: your support means the absolute world to me. I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to members of the Liberal Party in South Australia, especially our grassroots volunteers who put in countless hours on the campaign trail and within the party. Our party is a team, and I am here because of that team effort.

Despite the struggles Australia is experiencing, I remain profoundly optimistic about Australia's future. I stand here today as the daughter and granddaughter of people who left everything behind to come to the lucky country. My story speaks to the boundless opportunities this nation provides. In this chamber I will work tirelessly to ensure that Australia remains a land of opportunity and freedom, a country where a young girl from a migrant family can grow up to stand in the national legislature, where every child can dream big and have the chance to achieve those dreams. I undertake this task humbly, resolutely and with optimism for Australia's future. Thank you and may God bless Australia.

Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Mulholland to make her first speech and ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her.

Thank you, President, and congratulations on your election. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I also acknowledge the Gubbi Gubbi people back home in my local community of Queensland. I rise tonight incredibly humbled to be a senator for the great state of Queensland. I am a proud fourth-generation Queenslander. We are battlers, people who work hard, speak straight and don't ask for more than a fair go. I stand here tonight holding my young son, as you can see, with his bedtime fast approaching. I am praying that Auggie and I make it through this speech unscathed, so godspeed! Auggie is here not as a symbol but as a powerful reminder of why I am here. I'm a wife and a mum from the outer suburbs of Queensland. I've come to this place to fight for other Queensland families.

Mums and dads fundamentally belong in this chamber, not in theory but in the full, lived reality of working parents—the mess, the chaos, the juggle, the struggle and, of course, the magic and the mayhem that comes with raising children. Mums are masters at turning chaos into order and making the impossible possible, and I hope to bring just a bit of that mum energy to everything I do in this place, always remembering that it is Queenslanders who sent me here. I say this to my fellow Queenslanders back home, to the new mums struggling to return to work, to those people working far, far away from home on a FIFO shift, to the young workers working in a big supermarket late at night, to those doing the morning hustle on the way to work, to those battling their way through traffic to pick the kids up from school, to those simply just trying to make ends meet at the end of the week: I see you, I get you and I'm here to serve you.

When I set off on the campaign trail earlier this year, my young son was just three months old. As a new mum who was still breastfeeding, I sat in the back of a minivan with my Senate colleagues while we travelled the length and breadth of the Bruce Highway visiting Queenslanders where they're at. I made pit stops to pump breastmilk in a public toilet of a service station, at a regional airport and out the back of a country pub. It's not unlike other working parents who juggle returning to work with their caring responsibilities each and every day, and it has taken many, many parliamentarians decades to blaze a trail for working parents. It's thanks to their efforts that this working mum can stand here today in this chamber with her son. Now the responsibility is on the shoulders of everyone here to make this kind of modern workplace flexibility a reality for people outside of this building. I am committed to making the lives of working families just that little bit easier. I want families to have real choice and real flexibility in how, when and where they work.

When we combine flexible work and flexible care our economy is more productive, workforce participation for women is higher, our local roads are less congested and our families are healthier and happier. It's a win-win. That's why I want families to have an early education system that lets them choose the best care arrangements that work for them, with greater flexibility in days, locations and hours. Families might be fly-in fly-out, night shift workers, single parents or living in different homes. They shouldn't be penalised for not fitting into the mould no matter how they live or work. Right now, there are some 350,000 Queensland children in early education and child care, and we need a universal childcare system that works for all of those families and more.

I also want our early education system to truly be a world leader in choice, quality, safety, health and wellbeing. That's why I'm extremely proud of the record investment delivered by the Albanese government to deliver a much-needed 15 per cent pay rise to our amazing early educators. Educators are the beating heart of our childcare system, and they do incredible work to love and guide our littlest people. But for far too many families the start of child care can feel like a vicious cycle—a vicious cycle of colds and flus and illnesses that take a toll on families and place a massive drain on women's workforce participation and the productivity of our economy. Unplanned absences from work can cost our economy up to $33 billion annually. A study found that parents, mostly mothers, on average lose between five and 10 working days each year due to childcare related illness. Forty per cent of women have reported taking unpaid leave because their sick leave ran out while caring for their sick children. Flexibility in care and work can help turn this around in relation to our drain on productivity.

The other challenges facing families are access and safety while in care. In order to keep up with the rising cost of living, parents must rely on access to childcare places to get back to work or to simply stay in work. In regional and rural parts of Queensland places are very hard to come by, or simply non-existent, in so-called childcare deserts. In fact, a staggering 3.7 million Australians live in a childcare desert, a location where there are three children to every one child place available.

A recent study found thousands of families of western Queensland are sitting on childcare waitlists for up to 12 months. Of those families that could access care, 50 per cent reported they are not able to access the number of hours or days that they need. I'm proud of the Albanese government's investment that will build more childcare centres in regional and rural parts of Queensland. These centres will focus on co-locating services on school sites and supporting growth in high-quality not-for-profit providers.

But we cannot have a universal system until we have a system that truly deserves the trust we place in it. When it comes to trust, one thing I know is I cannot hold my son in my arms forever—I literally cannot! There comes a time where I must let him go. Next month, like thousands of Australian families, I take my young son to child care for the first time, and I do so filled with a gut-wrenching fear—a fear that has been amplified by the recent headlines about some of Australia's worst child sexual offenders infiltrating our childcare centres. These predators have preyed on the most innocent among us: our children. I know I'm not alone in this chamber in feeling the gravity of this moment.

There are several issues that, as policymakers, we must continue to confront to ensure the highest standards of safety in our centres. This includes screening processes that are impenetrable, a built environment that creates visibility in all high-risk locations, reviewing our staffing ratios and carefully considering the use of technology such as CCTV to deter offenders and to protect privacy. If you will now excuse me, I'm going to hand Auggie over, because even the toughest of little Queenslanders need a break every now and then.

You won't get him back!

I don't think I'll ever get him back now. Just as we fight for safety in the real world, we must also protect Australians in the digital one. Since COVID, we have seen a meteoric rise in online shopping, which is now used by more than 80 per cent of Australians. But our consumer laws haven't kept pace with that seismic shift. Queenslanders work way too hard to have their money ripped off by dodgy online companies. We must crack down on predatory online subscriptions which make it almost impossible to unsubscribe from and we must review our consumer guarantees to make sure they are fit for an online marketplace.

We need stronger laws that guarantee the return and refund of goods that show up at our door. Why should Australian consumers be stuck with an online store credit they can't use, because the company refused to issue them a refund? But, most importantly, we need a system that protects the businesses doing the right thing, so they are not undercut by the ones doing the wrong thing.

My resolve to stand up for Queensland families is shaped by my own upbringing and the woman who raised me. One of the lessons my mum taught me early in life is that you do not have a right to the cards that you wish you were dealt, but you do have an obligation to play the heck out of the ones that you are holding. And that was the story of her life.

My mother, Carmel, was born into a good, Catholic family, to Helen and Michael Lynch in Ipswich, Queensland. The family owned a fish and chip store and a local corner store in Ipswich where they worked hard to make ends meet, and the customer was always right. My mother's parents both passed away very early in life—long before I would ever get a chance to meet them. While her parents left this earth earlier than any young person deserves, they did imprint on my mum and our family some core values that still hold true today. They believed in rugby league, the Catholic Church, helping your neighbour and the decency of work.

My mum has always believed in putting your best foot forward and being the hardest worker in the room. She has always taught me to be braver than I felt. One of my earliest memories in life was my mum's strength in leaving an unhappy and cruel marriage. I'm not sure of the precise moment when my mum decided enough was enough, but what I remember more vividly is what came next. She left with nothing but courage and two children under three years of age watching her every move. Single-handedly, she raised my brother and I in the nineties. She did so without child support or a safety net to catch us.

At every stage, my mother has chosen courage over comfort. She worked long hours, late nights and many weekends. Money was always tight, but she made sure that we got by. She often made incredible sacrifices to make sure that there was food in our fridge, shoes that fit and, most importantly, a home that felt safe. My mum didn't need saving. She needed a system that backed her strength and she got that in the federal Labor government, because our little family relied on the things that good Labor governments fight for: bulk-billing doctors, world-class hospitals and brilliant public schools.

My mum was a fighter, but she also raised a fighter. Imprinted on me has always been a deep desire to fight for a fairer world. This lit a fire in my belly that drove me to get off my school bus at just 13 years of age and walk into my local member of parliament's office to volunteer. I wanted to help people, and this desire drove me to join the mighty Labor Party when I was just 15 years of age. I would spend my school holidays, weekends and time after school learning how I could help people. It turns out helping Queenslanders meant licking a lot of dry stamps, getting thousands of paper cuts and photocopying things to my heart's content, but I loved it.

My desire to do good also drove me to spend much of my working life in the disaster management sector. Queensland is the most disaster-prone state in Australia. In the last 14 years, our state has faced more than a hundred declared disaster events. I started working in the sector back in 2006 when Cyclone Larry was bearing down on the town of Innisfail. The category 5 system brought with it absolute devastation to Far North Queensland, and it also brought my first job working in the sector at the age of 18. I spent the next 6½ years working shoulder to shoulder with police and disaster management experts, responding to some of the most devastating floods, cyclones and bushfires that our state had ever experienced. I went on to work at my local council in 2011 to help my community recover from one of the most catastrophic floods in living memory.

I have a deep respect for the role of local government in communities. In almost 8½ years of working in local government, there are some moments that have really stuck with me. They remind me that government is at its best when it's delivering for the people. I remember standing in the living room of a single mum in Deception Bay. The air was thick, and the smell of mud lingered over her children's toys, her furniture, her carpet—everything. She had been told to leave that sodden and putrid carpet in place by her insurer. She'd lived like that for nine days, sleeping on a wooden chair. We helped that mum get into crisis accommodation, ripped up that carpet and tossed it in a skip bin out the front of her house.

Councils are not just about roads, rates and rubbish; they are often the first line of response when a disaster hits. They are the backbone of many Queensland communities. That's why one of my very first acts as a new senator for Queensland was to go out and visit local mayors across South-East Queensland in their communities. I believe that when the Commonwealth works together with the state and local governments, we can truly build Australia's future from the ground up.

But the process of government can feel distant. What we do in this place can sometimes feel removed from the people who we serve until your life depends on it, and mine did. When I was just 16 years of age, I was diagnosed with a serious autoimmune condition. It is a condition that would later hospitalise me for a long time and threatened to rob me of my quality of life. I credit my doctor for giving me a new treatment that had just come out of clinical trials, and it was showing positive results for people with my condition. My doctor wrote to the federal department of health to seek approval to use it. That drug saved my life, as I knew it, and it would have cost more than $10,000 per infusion. It wasn't purchased on a platinum credit card. It came from a signature down the bottom of a PBS approval form, and that treatment was free for a young girl who desperately needed it. I carry with me every day a debt of gratitude for our public hospital system, for Medicare and for our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

When the opportunity came to give back to our public health system and medical research, I took it with both arms. I have been honoured to serve on the Prince Charles Hospital Foundation, an organisation undertaking groundbreaking medical research in heart and lung treatments. Thanks to this research, we are now able to transport hearts longer distances to patients in desperate need of an organ transplant on the other side of the country. Our research has also helped to develop a world-first treatment for silicosis called the lung lavage, a process of washing the lungs of a patient and removing dust particles that have settled deep in their lungs. Silicosis is a debilitating and deadly occupational lung disease. There is no known cure. These treatments will greatly improve the quality of life for hundreds of Queensland workers living with this awful disease.

In concluding tonight, I would like to recognise some people and groups important to me. I start with the mighty trade union movement. We are here in this place to improve the lives of working people, and we do so on the backs of thousands of trade unionists who have fought hard for the things that we often take for granted. I pay tribute to the SDA and recognise Queensland secretary Justin Power in the gallery, his team and the whole of the SDA nationwide. The SDA is often the first union that vulnerable young workers come in contact with when they first start their job in retail or fast food. The SDA is doing important work, standing up for young workers to ensure they are paid a fair wage and superannuation on every dollar they earn.

I recognise Stacey Schinnerl from the Australian Workers' Union. She is the first female secretary of the Australian Workers' Union. I recognise you, Stacey, for your grit and your determination that you bring to advancing the Labor cause and, most importantly, the women within it. To Josh Millroy and the Transport Workers' Union: your union has stood up for aviation workers, for bus workers who are under attack and for safer rates for the trucking industry. Thank you for the work that your union has done to make our roads and skies safer. I acknowledge there is still more work to be done.

I also recognise former deputy prime minister and treasurer and our current ALP National President, Wayne Swan, who is in the gallery, for his guidance and, particularly, his intimate working knowledge of Queensland's regional provisional shows and Sunshine Coast surf breaks. But, more seriously, through Wayne, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the thousands of ALP branch members across Queensland. They are decent, good-hearted people who ask nothing of our party but seek only to serve it. We are nothing without our branch members. I recognise my federal colleagues from the House, including Jim Chalmers, Anika Wells, Milton Dick, Shayne Neumann and Emma Comer. Thank you for all your support, even if what happens in this chamber seems like a little bit of mysterious Senate business to you guys.

To my fellow Queensland Labor Senate colleagues, Anthony Chisholm, Murray Watt and Nita Green: we made it through life on the road together in a minivan and we are all still talking, so that's good. Here's to plenty more Senate road trips where they came from. To my state colleagues, Steven Miles, Cameron Dick and Bart Mellish: your legacy of 50c fares has made Queensland a fairer place for all. To Kate Flanders and the entire team at party office: thank you for your incredible work during the federal campaign and, particularly, Kate, for your gigantic Medicare corflutes, one of which I have souvenired. To my own staff, Tim, Sophia, Scott and Jeremy: thank you for what you every day to fight for Queensland families.

I would also like to acknowledge my brother, Lachie, his wife, Jayde, and their little baby, Sterling. Thank you all for being my biggest cheerleaders and always making me smile. To my extended family, including Tony, Cathy and Richie here tonight: thank you for supporting our little family. We couldn't do it without you. To my friends at Fitstop Redcliffe—and they said I'd be in trouble if I didn't mention them; they're a 10-person walking focus group—thank you very much for keeping me sane, always counting my reps and not letting me take myself too seriously. To my mother, Carmel: thank you for every success you have made for me to succeed. You continue to support us so that I can be in this place to do good.

Last, but not least, to my amazing husband, Davis: you are the heart and soul of the operation. You are the best possible husband and the father to our son, Auggie, and you have a heart the size of Phar Lap. Thank you for always believing in me.

I stand here because my mother taught me to meet hardship with strength and to play the cards I was dealt with purpose, because a 13-year-old girl walked into her local MP's office believing that public service could change lives, because I have stood in floodwaters with Queenslanders picking up the pieces and have lain in a hospital bed, relying on the strength of Medicare and our PBS system, and because I know what government looks like when it works and I know who pays the price when it doesn't. One day my son will ask me what I did with my time in this place, and I will tell him that I worked hard to make Queensland fairer, safer and more decent, that I honoured the trust placed in me by Queenslanders and that I gave it everything I had.

President, may I also extend to you my congratulations on your election to this high office.

I rise this afternoon to also pay tribute to a remarkable Western Australian, a deeply committed public servant and a stalwart of the Liberal Party—that, of course, is Senator Dr Alan Eggleston, who passed away on 13 May 2025. In doing so, I want to associate myself with the very generous remarks made by Senator Cash and those made by Senator McAllister and Senator McKenzie.

Alan served this chamber and the people of Western Australia with quiet dignity, fierce intelligence and an unwavering sense of duty. His was a voice of regional Western Australia, grounded in the red earth of the Pilbara, shaped by his medical background and driven by an enduring belief in fairness, opportunity and service. Alan Eggleston was not only a senator for Western Australia; he was a senator of Western Australia. He was a champion of remote Australia before it became fashionable, an advocate for regions too often forgotten by Canberra, who considered it the responsibility of government to provide a fair go for all Australians, no matter their postcode.

It was a privilege to have had published in the West Australian newspaper just recently an obituary written by me for Alan, and I'm grateful to the West Australian newspaper for giving me that opportunity. I'll just make some brief remarks this afternoon and make some personal observations reflecting on his life in local politics and his early involvement and lasting involvement in the Liberal Party, his contribution to shaping the north-west of Western Australia and his long legacy to me and others in this Senate chamber who had the privilege of working with him.

Alan's commitment to service led him to local government, serving as mayor of Port Hedland from 1988 to 1991. He approached this with a calm pragmatism and understood that policy is not something cooked up in offices in Perth or in Canberra; it was lived day by day by local people. Alan was president of the Kalgoorlie North division of the Liberal Party from 1980 to 1984 and the WA state Liberal Party vice-president from 1981 to 1985. He was an active member, deeply respected for his policy insight and the authenticity of his views. He was not a party man for party's sake. He believed in the values of liberalism, especially its emphasis on individual dignity, enterprise and limited but effective government.

Remarkably, Alan's election to the Senate almost never happened. At the 1987 federal election, Alan stood in the unwinnable sixth position on the Liberal Party ticket. He had contested a Senate spot for the 1990 federal election but withdrew his candidature while the selection meeting was taking place. Alan was finally elected to the Senate in 1996, winning the third spot on the ticket by just a single vote. Alan reportedly said that, over the years, many people came to him and said they were that one vote.

But it was his tireless advocacy for northern Western Australia that defined his parliamentary career. He used every tool available to a senator to fight for infrastructure and services for the Pilbara, Kimberley, Gascoyne and beyond. He spoke powerfully about the impact of the mining boom on regional housing and social cohesion. He lobbied for improved air services, better roads and the need for skilled workers to be attracted and retained in remote towns. He never tired of reminding those in Canberra—those in this Senate chamber—that WA was the engine room of our national economy and that those who lived and worked in the north deserved to share in its rewards. He also fought hard for Aboriginal communities and understood that health outcomes were about more than hospitals; they were about housing, education, clean water and community trust.

We heard from Senator Cash about the 22 years of service he provided in various forms in the township of Port Hedland, and of course he was the local GP in Port Hedland for many, many years. I grew up in Port Hedland when Alan Eggleston was its local GP. My father was the local policeman, and, while I never knew Alan Eggleston when I was five or six, my mother does tell the story of how she recalls, while she was pregnant perhaps, encountering him in his surgery all those years ago. What a remarkable revelation about how life twists and turns and then finds itself meeting again, having had the opportunity, as I did, as a more mature kid that grew up in Port Hedland, of working beside him in this Senate chamber.

Within the WA Liberals, Alan was a mentor, a sage source of advice and, for many, a moral compass. He was never one for factionalism or internal games. He encouraged younger Liberals to visit the regions and see life beyond the metropolitan bubble. Alan believed that the Liberal cause was strongest when it remembered its country roots—when it stood up for small-business owners, pastoralists, local volunteers and the battlers who keep rural communities running.

His policy contributions behind the scenes were significant, and he was instrumental in shaping the party's thinking on how we delivered practical outcomes where the circumstances were culturally and geographically complex. Shortly after his coming to the Senate, in 2012 the coalition was beset with two very important issues—important to Western Australians most particularly. The first was a very heated debate about whether or not to continue the process of deregulation of our wheat export markets. Anyone who knows anything about wheat exports knows that the bulk of wheat exports from our country come from Western Australia. Curiously, at the time, the coalition government, led by Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce, wanted to reverse the success of wheat deregulation. Alan and I were quick to our feet as Western Australian senators to say 'not in our name'. It was a moment in this Senate chamber when I learnt a very important political lesson: don't blink first. And, of course, having to cross the floor—as Alan and I were prepared to do, to support WA wheat farmers—wasn't necessary because Senator Joyce, at the time, and Senator Nash, at the time, didn't call a division.

The second issue speaks to Alan's commitment and indeed the commitment all Western Australians have to maintaining our federal structure. The Rudd-Gillard period saw the Gillard government bring forward a referendum proposition to recognise local government in our Australian Constitution. That referendum bill reached the Senate. That referendum bill passed the Senate. Alan and I, with senators Bushby, Fawcett, Back and McKenzie, used the privileges that are bestowed on us as backbench senators to oppose that referendum bill. Again, curiously, the coalition had a bipartisan commitment to that referendum proposition. That bipartisan commitment was challenged in our party room, and Tony Abbott and others saw the wisdom of then advocating against that particular referendum proposition. But of course the referendum never happened, because Kevin Rudd called an election for the first possible Saturday for that referendum, and we've never heard of the recognition of local government in our national Constitution ever again—and long may that be the case. Alan Eggleston was the first republican I ever met in the Liberal Party, but I chose not to ever hold that against him!

I extend my deepest condolences to Alan's family, friends and former staff; to the WA Liberal Party, who have lost a cherished elder; and to the people of the north-west, who have lost a champion. Let me use these last words as a way of sharing with this Senate chamber what others have said about Alan. The first is from Elsia Archer, a champion of regional Western Australia and a local icon in the small township of Derby in WA's far north Kimberley region. Elsia said, 'Alan was one of life's finest gentleman and cared for all.' The second is from Evi Ferrier, Alan's companion and partner of many, many years. She said: 'Alan was a remarkable playmate. He was always willing to join me in anything, even tap-dancing master classes and swimming in the ocean all year round.' In her last conversation with Alan, she told him, 'I love you more than the world.' Alan responded, 'What about the dog?'—good humoured and fun to the very end.

Alan Eggleston is, as far as I've been able to discover, still the only Western Australian senator to have ever appeared on a poster for Perth's Fringe festival.

I know, Senator Brockman; I didn't know that either until Evi sent that to me.

We have lost a remarkable individual, a person who has served our state with great triumph and always with the greatest humility. Again, we extend condolences to Alan's family, to all his friends and to those in the Senate chamber that had the privilege and honour to work with him.

I too rise to associate myself with this condolence motion, and I want to follow on from some of the things my colleague from Western Australia Dean Smith talked about there. One of Dean's comments was that Senator Eggleston wasn't overly ideological, and that is true. But I must say that the first time I can remember ever encountering Alan Eggleston was at a Liberal Party state conference when he was a member, and probably the president, of the Kalgoorlie North division. This was at a time when the internal laws of the Liberal Party did have some little anomalies that I'm certain Alan used to the best of that division's benefit! Alan used to wear a long coat, and attached to that coat were numerous proxies. The Kalgoorlie North division was allowed to carry unlimited proxies because of its remoteness, and, certainly, that division used that ability to wield, within the Liberal Party, a degree of influence that I know Alan always used wisely.

Alan was an absolute champion for regional Western Australia. I was not lucky enough to share time in this chamber with Alan, but that does not mean he was not a significant part of my political journey. Certainly I remember him being an absolute fixture at state conferences, state council meetings and regional branch divisional meetings, right from my earliest days in getting actively involved in the Liberal Party of Western Australia. We did have a strong connection because, like Alan, growing up I was deeply associated with a regional division of the WA Liberal Party. In my case it was the O'Connor division, and in Alan's case it was Kalgoorlie North and then the Durack division. Whilst we didn't always agree on issues, we did try and work together as regional divisions on many occasions.

Alan was an absolute force of nature. He stood up for what he believed. He was willing to stand up against things that he thought were wrong and take a stand publicly on those aspects where he thought that his voice could lend support to a cause. You have only to look at his parliamentary biography—and I did print it out—to see the sheer number of committees he was involved in over his journey in this place. It is quite extraordinary. I cannot believe it. Sometimes I look at mine and think, 'Did I actually serve on that committee?' But, looking at Alan's, it's quite extraordinary how many committees he did play an active part in.

His list of party positions in the Western Australia Liberal Party was also extensive. He was a champion of our party. At the memorial service that Senator Cash talked about, one of the things that came through so very strongly was how much our Western Australian Liberal Party meant to him. I think, as we stand in this place as representatives of our various organisations, it is worthwhile reflecting on Alan's approach to his service and his understanding that the party was bigger than the individual, that he was representing a set of values and people who shared a common set of ideals and principles. He did so with a passion, intelligence and commitment that I think we would all do very, very well to reflect on.

His service in local government has been gone through. It was obviously of huge benefit to his local community to have someone of such passion and force advocating on their behalf not only locally when he lived in Port Hedland and was a member of the local government there but also when he came to this place to advocate actively for those regional communities that often are forgotten about and that often are the last people to receive services regardless of how economically successful they are. Port Hedland is the economic powerhouse of this nation. We should all remember just how much of Australia's wealth actually flows through the port of Port Hedland. Alan was a champion for making sure those regional communities, particularly in the north of Western Australia but right across Australia, did get the recognition they deserved.

Something that Senator Cash touched on I will touch on myself. It was something I learned at Alan's memorial service—just how he was treated in medical school by certain individuals. One thing that really stuck with me from that service was how his fellow medical students going through at the same time never allowed that bureaucratic rejection of Alan to influence their view of Alan. They always treated him as one of the graduates of that class, even though he had to go to London to finish his medical training and then subsequently returned to Western Australia. His fellow medical students recognised in him that quality which we all grew to know and respect over many, many years.

He was truly a wonderful servant of our state. He was a man of enormous heart, great intellect and unwavering courage. He never let the world define his limits. From doctor to mayor to senator, he carved out a remarkable life of service and purpose, always with humility, wit and determination. Rest in peace, Alan.

I rise today to join with my colleagues in recognising and respecting the life of Dr Alan Eggleston, a former senator from Western Australia. I associate myself with all those who have gone before me to speak here this afternoon.

Dr Eggleston was born on 30 December 1941 in the beautiful Western Australian town of Busselton, and he spent his early years there before relocating to Perth to attend Christ Church Grammar School in Claremont, where we held his commemoration service. After completing secondary school, he ventured on to pursue a degree in medicine at the University of Western Australia. Despite facing notable challenges due to his medical and physical condition, he modelled great determination and tenacity. Following his time at UWA he travelled to the United Kingdom, where he completed his studies at London university and Birmingham hospitals. He then returned to Australia as Dr Alan Eggleston.

In 1974 Dr Eggleston relocated to Port Hedland. What was initially intended to be a short time became a 22-year commitment to the Pilbara region and its people. For those that aren't familiar with the Pilbara, it can be a challenging place. Through my career, I've been a part-time FIFO worker to the Pilbara, and to base yourself there and live there is a tremendous commitment. Those that do it absolutely love it, but its scorching hot summers and cold winters—or cold nights—could not have made the idealistic backdrop for a young medical graduate. Despite that, Dr Eggleston devoted himself to his community, and we saw that right through his career, particularly as a senator.

For 22 years, his Port Hedland surgery was a refuge in a region where access to medical care was limited. At times he was the only general practitioner for literally hundreds of kilometres. He cared for all with dignity, compassion and resolve, even famously delivering several babies mid-flight as a flying doctor. It was out of his deep commitment to service that Dr Eggleston went on to become a local government councillor and widely respected mayor of Port Hedland.

It was his enduring commitment to service that led him to represent the Western Australian people, at the federal level, that we all have the privilege of serving here in this place. He served in the Australian Senate with distinction for 18 years. Together with his devotion to the north-west, Dr Eggleston was a committed federalist, believing that federal and state governments have a critical role in ensuring the best interests of regional Australia are served and not just the exclusive domain of the cities.

Some of my colleagues have talked about votes that occur in political parties. I have a sliding-door moment that relates to Dr Eggleston myself, and it's due to a vote. I was a preselection candidate for the seat of Burt in 2016, and I was involved in the party but not really in the forefront of the party, you would say. I ran as a candidate and met with Dr Alan Eggleston, a former senator at the time. I, of course, knew who he was, but it was the first time he got to meet me. Through that meeting and that exchange that I had with him in South Perth, he made a commitment to me that day that he would support me in my preselection, because he was drawn as a random delegate from state council.

I knew it was going to be a very tight preselection, and it would come down, literally, to one vote. Unfortunately, Dr Eggleston was sick on the day of the preselection, and he wasn't able to come, so I lost by one vote! But the sliding-door situation is that I was, you would say, somewhat in obscurity within the party, but it went to state council, and the decision was overturned by state council. I therefore had to do my preselection in front of state council—sorry, I went on to lose by that one vote, and I went on to state council to have the preselection recontested. Had Alan Eggleston turned up to my original preselection, I would have won it, run for the seat of Burt, not won at the election and just been that guy that ran for Burt that one time. But, instead, I was put in front of state council, where I got the opportunity to be introduced across the whole state council. Then, literally three years later, I was pre-selected into the Senate. Life is filled with strange moments like that. That path may never have been opened for me if that circumstance didn't happen, and these are small moments that remind us of how the lives of those around us can unexpectedly shape even our own.

It was a privilege to attend Dr Eggleston's commemoration service at Christ Church Grammar School. Those that were there saw that the auditorium was filled to the brim with many people—family, old schoolmates, former colleagues and even former premiers—with many gathering to reflect on the profound and lasting impact that he left on all that had the privilege of encountering him. His legacy will endure well beyond his lifetime, and his influence will continue to be felt in regional health, local government and indeed in federal politics. Dr Alan Eggleston will be remembered with a deep respect and admiration as a man of resilience, compassion and servant leadership. Senator Brockman just quoted from his obituary that, I think, he had in the West Australian. You said:

A man of enormous heart, great intellect, and unwavering courage, Alan never let the world define his limits. From Doctor to Mayor to Senator, he carved out a remarkable life of service and purpose—always with humility, wit, and determination.

And you went on to say in your obituary—you didn't just say it here—he was a 'dragon slayer'. And that's true.

Vale, Alan. You left the world a better place than you found it. May you rest in peace.

I would just like to associate myself with the comments of all my colleagues in the chamber today who have spoken with respect to the service of former senator Alan Eggleston, Dr Eggleston, having had the very good fortune to serve with him—as my wife said to me as I was heading out of the chamber earlier in the night, a man who loved his leather jacket. It might have been for reasons that have been explained by Senator Brockman earlier, but the leather jacket was a feature that even Gaylene noticed. He was somebody who achieved despite what everyone else might have expected. I think of the story that Senator Brockman told about the appalling way that he was treated by the medical system when he was doing his training to be a doctor, the support he got from his colleagues on the course and the fact that, despite that, he found a way. He just got on with the job and did the job and then went on to a remarkable life of service to the Port Hedland community, whether that be as a medical practitioner in that community, whether that be in local government or whether that be when he came to the Senate and remained a remarkable advocate for regional Western Australia.

He had what I would describe as a very, very wry sense of humour. He could be a bit mischievous at times, as those of us who served with him would know, and he was on many occasions our wise man. He would provide advice, he would provide support and he would hold court. He had a great intellect, and he used that for the benefit of his community, for the benefit of the country—with over 18 years of service in this place—and also in support of colleagues and others, who he was always prepared to provide support to in this place when they needed it or when even he thought they may have needed it. He was only too willing to offer.

It is a remarkable career that he has achieved—a remarkable life that he has achieved. It was appropriate that he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2019 for all of that service. I am very, very pleased that he was a colleague for me for a period of time in this place, for 12 years, and very much enjoyed working with him. The fact that he served as chair of the economics committee over a couple of stints, environment and comms, and also foreign affairs, defence and trade shows the breadth of what he was capable of—to be given the responsibility to chair those committees. So, to all those that loved him and miss him, my condolences. Rest in peace, Eggy.

If the Senate may indulge me for just a couple of seconds, I did have the privilege of serving with Eggy. You hear the statement 'a gentleman and a scholar'; there could be no truer words spoken about Eggy. He was an absolute diamond. To his family and friends and to the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party: you've lost a champion there. Eggy, rest in peace, mate.

Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ciccone for today, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

At the request of Senators Canavan and McDonald, I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 7, standing in their names, until Monday 28 July.

Leave granted.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Lambie for 22 to 31 July, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the days of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of 2025 be as follows:

Wednesday, 23 July and Thursday, 24 July

Monday, 28 July to Thursday, 31 July

Monday, 25 August to Thursday, 28 August

Monday, 1 September to Thursday, 4 September

Monday, 27 October to Thursday, 30 October

Monday, 3 November to Thursday, 6 November

Monday, 24 November to Thursday, 27 November.

I seek leave to make a short statement of one minute.

Leave granted.

The coalition acknowledges that the setting of the sitting calendar is the government's prerogative. However, it is deeply regrettable that this motion provides for only 27 sitting days for the balance of the calendar year. It is not enough. This sitting calendar limits the opportunity of senators to hold the executive to account. It provides inadequate opportunity for senators to advocate on issues of concern to their communities. The chamber is not just for the promotion of the government's legislative agenda; it is a house of review for the benefit of all Australians, and the sitting calendar should reflect that foundational principle.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025

Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025

Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025.

Question agreed to.

I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

That the following bills be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to separate the Australian Energy Regulator from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and for related purposes.

A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to health, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bills and move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I present the explanatory memoranda relating and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN ENERGY REGULATOR SEPARATION) BILL 2025

This bill marks a significant step in our commitment to improve regulatory outcomes in the energy sector, by ensuring dedicated governance and accountability structures that are tailored specifically to energy market regulation.

The intention of this Bill is to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to separate the Australian Energy Regulator (the AER) from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC), establishing the AER as a non-corporate commonwealth entity with operational control of its staff, resources and governance arrangements.

The AER is the independent regulator of wholesale and retail energy markets and energy networks, mainly across southern and eastern Australia, under national energy laws and rules. Its key activities include energy network regulation, compliance and enforcement, and the performance monitoring and reporting of energy wholesale and retail markets as well as network businesses.

Taken together, that is an incredibly important function—as perfectly well expressed in the AER's purpose, which is "to ensure energy consumers are better off, now and in the future".

The AER currently operates as a constituent part of the ACCC. Both organisations are a single Commonwealth entity for the purpose of the finance law. The AER shares staff, resources and facilities with the ACCC—and as a result, the AER Board, which responsible for regulatory functions, does not have direct control over resources and staff, which remain under the ACCC's authority.

This proposed amendment to legally separate the AER from the ACCC will remove the governance risks that hinder the AER's ability to manage its increasing regulatory responsibilities effectively. It will enable the AER to operate effectively as an independent entity.

The bill will not change the key elements of the Australian Energy Market Agreement—such as the role and function of the AER as the independent energy regulator, the composition of the AER's board, the requirement for the Commonwealth to fund the AER, and the administrative law arrangements whereby the decisions of the AER will continue to be subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.

The National Energy Laws—which provide the AER with more detailed functions and obligations—will also remain unchanged.

It has to be acknowledged that several independent reviews have recommended an autonomous AER.

In 2015 the Review of Governance Arrangements for Australian Energy Markets, chaired by Dr Michael Vertigan, considered governance arrangements of the Australian energy markets and recommended that the AER should have full management and financial autonomy, which would most effectively be achieved by re-establishing the AER as a stand-alone regulatory body.

The 2017 Independent Review into the Future of the National Electricity Market, led by Dr Alan Finkel, noted the AER's role is highly technical and sector specific, and that by constituting the AER as a separate energy agency we would be mirroring the structures of other energy market bodies and comparable energy regulators in similar countries.

State and Territory Energy Ministers have been consulted on the proposal, and on 19 May 2023, agreed the AER should be established as a standalone Commonwealth entity.

It would surprise no one to observe that the AER's operational environment has evolved significantly since its establishment in 2005. As the energy market becomes more complex, and with the AER's regulatory functions expanding, the AER needs the authority to manage its own resources and to set its own strategic direction independently from the ACCC.

The ambitious scale and pace of the energy transition requires the AER to operate with greater financial and operational autonomy. A distinctly separate AER will provide for greater management and financial autonomy, contributing to the overall effectiveness of the AER as Australia's energy regulator.

Creating a standalone AER will formalise its governance responsibilities, including for managing its budget, human resources, and risk oversight. This change will allow the AER to better align its internal operations with its regulatory mandate and strategic goals.

This is essential for effectively managing the energy transition, overseeing wholesale and retail markets, and addressing issues like energy affordability and network regulation. In other words, this change will make sure the AER is better placed to do what we need it to do in the best interests of the Australian community.

The bill supports the broader energy policy of the Government, enabled through the National Energy Transformation Partnership, a framework for Commonwealth, state and territory governments to work together on reforms to help transform Australia's energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

One of the priority themes of the framework is strengthening energy governance architecture.

The bill is a necessary and forward-looking reform that helps achieve this priority theme.

The Government is committed to delivering affordable, reliable, and clean energy for all Australians, and the reforms contained in this bill will help make that vision a reality.

HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (IMPROVED MEDICARE INTEGRITY AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2025

Today, I introduce the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025.

Australia has a world-class health system that offers affordable, high-quality, accessible health care to all Australians. This is due in large part to the various health benefit schemes—including Medicare and its programs—that help Australians pay for the health care they need.

The government is committed to protecting and strengthening Medicare—and part of this is improving the compliance framework that ensures the integrity of these rebates.

The Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, known as the Philip review, was commissioned by the government to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system.

In 2023, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Act 2023 and the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Act 2023 made priority amendments in response to this review.

This bill implements further improvements responding to Philip review recommendations.

The bill implements a measure announced in the 2024-25 budget: reducing the timeframe during which Medicare claims for bulk-billed services can be made from two years to one year. Claims relating to bulk-billed services can currently be made up to two years after a health service has been provided.

This change will improve payment integrity and reduce the number of incorrect and fraudulently submitted claims. This will have minimal impact on patients and practitioners as most claims are already made within 12 months. There will be discretion to accept claims after that time, to ensure patients are not disadvantaged.

Currently, a range of legislative provisions across health portfolio legislation are creating barriers to effective compliance activities, particularly when it comes to deterring and responding to serious non-compliance and fraud.

The bill responds to these barriers by allowing investigative powers to be used consistently and effectively across Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Changes will also enable powers to be used in the investigation of Criminal Code offences and remove the need for AFP assistance with executing warrants for suspected Criminal Code offences.

These amendments will improve investigative powers in health portfolio legislation and ensure they can be put into practice consistently, effectively and proportionately to respond to behaviour that jeopardises the integrity of health benefits schemes.

Under the National Health Act 1953, a pharmacist can request that the Minister for Health and Aged Care exercise a discretion to approve the supply of pharmaceutical benefits at particular premises. This is currently a two-stage process, which can take up to six months. This is frustrating and time-consuming for the applicant and may also delay the community's access to pharmaceutical benefits.

In this bill, the two-stage process is proposed to be streamlined and condensed into a single-stage process of up to four months. This will help to reduce a significant administrative burden. And it will provide the community with more timely access to pharmaceutical benefits.

The amendments improve existing powers to obtain information about potential fraud and non-compliance and enable the recovery of amounts if they should not have been paid.

The Philip Review recommended the 'expansion of powers to ensure all types of serious non-compliance can be effectively dealt with' and 'a reduction in regulation and legislation that hinders compliance activities'.

The Philip Review concluded there are limitations and restrictions around current compliance processes. For example, if incorrect payments are identified, current provisions don't always enable amounts to be appropriately recovered. This is because some recovery mechanisms rely on outdated claiming processes and requests for hard copy documents. These matters are restricting the ability of the Department of Health and Aged Care to protect the integrity of Medicare programs and payments.

These changes will enable appropriate inquiries to be made about Medicare payments if available information suggests potential non-compliance or fraud. If payments are found to be incorrect, amounts could be recovered.

Changes will also improve the ability of regulators to protect patient safety by removing some restrictions on the admission of information obtained under the Professional Service Review's notice to produce powers as evidence in relevant proceedings, including proceedings for the purposes of the National Law for the health practitioner registration and accreditation scheme.

This will remove some restrictions on the admission of information obtained under the Professional Services Review Agency's 'notice to produce' powers as evidence in proceedings, including proceedings under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

The existing restrictions will no longer apply in respect of prosecutions related to a failure to produce documents, proceedings to recover debts relating to the Professional Services Review Scheme and some other proceedings related to non-compliance.

The restrictions will also not apply in respect of documents produced to PSR under notice and passed onto Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) or a National Board under certain provisions in the Health Insurance Act, or information obtained or generated by Ahpra or a National Board from its own investigation, triggered by documents produced to PSR under notice.

This will enable Ahpra and associated Health Practitioner Boards to use PSR-related material to trigger their own investigation into allegations involving risks to patient safety. This will also allow Ahpra and Health Practitioner Boards to admit evidence in National Law proceedings if it was referred to them under the legislation for the reasons of a significant threat to life or health or non-compliance with professional standards. These changes are required to ensure all appropriate steps are taken to protect patient safety and that the existing requirement to refer the information to Ahpra and Health Practitioner Boards is not frustrated.

These changes will enhance the Department of Health and Aged Care's capacity to address identified risks to patient safety and manage and address the consequences of non-compliance and potential fraud.

The bill makes several sensible amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Therapeutic Goods Act).

The bill enhances the capacity of the government to manage and alleviate the consequences of therapeutic goods shortages in Australia. It allows the secretary of the department to approve the importation or supply of substitutable unapproved products from overseas if the Secretary is satisfied that the approved medicine, biological or medical device may, in the reasonably foreseeable future, become unavailable or be in short supply.

The bill supports compliance and enforcement activities in relation to both unlawful therapeutic goods and unlawful vaping goods.

Specifically, the bill broadens the circumstances in which section 52AAA applies to ensure that forfeiture arrangements can extend to the range of circumstances in which goods may be seized under the Therapeutic Goods Act. Rather than, as currently, only the circumstance where goods are seized under a warrant issued under section 50. This amendment will help deter the trafficking of such goods by sending a strong message to bad actors operating in this space that the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) will take unlawful goods permanently.

The bill lowers the threshold that must be satisfied before the secretary may give an enforceable direction to a person under section 42YT of the Therapeutic Goods Act. The current requirement is that a direction is necessary to protect the health and safety of humans. The amendment will result in a more balanced approach that a direction must be considered and issued in the interests of public health and safety. This approach ensures the more appropriate availability of such directions to protect Australians from new and emerging public health threats.

The bill enhances the ability of state and territory officers to monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with the Therapeutic Goods Act and Regulations by allowing for the provision, inspection, copying and retention of documents or information.

The bill also clarifies that section 61, which authorises the release of information in relation to therapeutic goods and vaping goods in certain circumstances, is not a secrecy provision.

The bill includes other minor amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act, to keep the Act up to date and to assist with the TGA's important functions.

The bill also amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to make minor consequential amendments to support the government's ground-breaking vaping reforms.

Finally, the bill amends the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023(the tobacco act) which commenced on 1 April 2024. These amendments clarify the intended operation of the provisions and are amendments that have been identified as necessary in the implementation phase of the legislation.

The measures in this bill will further the government's efforts to strengthen Medicare and will assist in the implementation of our world-leading tobacco and vaping reforms.

I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. I move:

That the following bills be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to provide for a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, and for related purposes.

A Bill for an Act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Act 2025, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bills and move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I present the explanatory memoranda and I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

UNIVERSITIES ACCORD (NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION CODE TO PREVENT AND RESPOND TO GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE) BILL 2025

This is a re-introduction of a bill that the Minister for Education introduced toward the end of the last Parliament. I am proud to introduce it today on behalf of the re-elected Albanese Labor Government.

It's an important bill.

In many ways it is a reminder of the work that the Government did in our previous term to safeguard students and staff on campus.

And to tackle serious issues which had been put in the too-hard basket during almost a decade of Coalition Government.

Last term, the Albanese Labor Government opened a new National Student Ombudsman—a national first.

With powers similar to a Royal Commission, its job is to investigate complaints made against a university.

To do what advocates have been calling for over many years.

To address a situation where one in twenty university students reported being sexually assaulted on campus.

One in six reported being sexually harassed.

And one in two reported that they felt they weren't being heard when they made a complaint.

The National Student Ombudsman was the first step. This bill and its companion bill are the next steps.

They provide for the establishment and enforcement of a National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence.

On 6 February, the Minister for Education tabled a copy of the proposed National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence in the House.

The Code will be made by the Minister for Education as a legislative instrument and it will set out best practice requirements that higher education providers will be required to meet.

It will hold higher education providers to consistently high standards to proactively prevent and respond to gender-based violence.

These standards will be backed by monitoring and enforcement to ensure that Government builds a culture of compliance in this critical area.

Under the Code, higher education providers will be required to take evidence-based steps to prevent gender-based violence on their campuses.

This includes requiring that Vice-Chancellors and CEOs make a whole-of-organisation plan, and report to their Governing Body every six months on the actions they are taking to implement it.

They will be required to provide evidence-based prevention education and training to staff and students and consider any history of gender-based violence in the recruitment and promotion of staff.

They will be required to consult with students, staff and people with lived experience, and their approach must be informed by evidence of what works.

The Code will also ensure that when the worst happens, students and staff have access to the best response possible.

A response that is trauma informed and puts people first.

A response that ensures people are heard, have agency in what happens next, have access to the support they need and are supported by their institution to achieve their educational outcomes.

Providers will be required to train staff and student leaders on how best to respond to disclosures.

And non-disclosure agreements will be prohibited, unless requested by a victim-survivor.

Providers will also be required to report de-identified data and measure the changes that their policies are securing, informing compliance, ensuring accountability and contributing to the national evidence base to help us build an understanding of what works best.

The Code will also include an enforceable requirement that providers implement the relevant recommendations of the National Student Ombudsman.

This gives the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman real teeth and will make sure that they are put in place to improve our universities and other providers.

University is not just a place where people learn. For many students, it's where they live.

That's why the Code will also have specific requirements to help ensure that student accommodation is safe for students.

The Code will require that following a disclosure or formal report, measures are immediately put in place to prioritise residents' safety and arrange urgent support services.

And for accommodation which is affiliated with a university but not controlled by it, the university will be required to seek that accommodation provider's agreement to meet the requirements of the code or lose the benefits of their affiliation with the university.

And universities will have an obligation to investigate formal reports of gender-based violence even where they occur at student accommodation which is operated by a third party.

If you want to know why that's important, you just have to look at the accounts of sexual assault and mistreatment at university colleges and other on-campus accommodation.

Universities will not have the option of saying a disclosure of gender-based violence is a matter for a private college. Where the discloser or respondent is a student or staff member of the university, the Code will require that the university take action, including to provide trauma-informed support and to investigate where necessary.

The Code has been the subject of broad consultation over several months, including with victim-survivor advocates, students, the higher education sector, gender-based violence experts, states and territories and relevant Australian Government agencies.

Detailed consultation has taken place through an Expert Reference Group comprising 19 leaders from higher education, gender-based violence and the student accommodation sectors and victim-survivor advocates.

The Code contains critically important standards and requirements which all higher education providers must follow.

That's why these bills also establish a new regulatory framework with robust compliance monitoring backed by strong enforcement powers.

To monitor and enforce the Code, a new specialist gender-based violence branch will be established within the Department of Education.

The branch will provide guidance, education and advice to support universities and other providers in understanding their legal obligations under the Code.

The branch will also be able to exercise a significant range of powers to monitor, investigate and respond to non-compliance with the Code and the measures in this Bill.

These powers include issuing requests for information, compliance notices, infringement notices, and powers to require enforceable undertakings and to seek civil penalties and injunctions through a court.

As mentioned earlier, Vice Chancellors and CEOs will be directly accountable for the compliance of their university with the Code, including requirements that they report every six months to their governing body.

The bills provide for significant civil penalties where a provider fails to comply with the National Code or a compliance notice from the Secretary, or fails to keep records or meet their reporting obligations.

Compliance with the National Code will also become a quality and accountability requirement for providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

Transparency is important here too.

That's why the bill provides for annual reporting on the gender-based violence unit's operations and performance which will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

The introduction of the Code is part of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-Based Violence in Higher Education, agreed by all Education Ministers in February last year.

That Action Plan was recommended by a working group of Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments which my Department convened as part of our response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report.

The Universities Accord underlined the importance of moving immediately to address sexual assault and sexual harassment in our universities.

That's what this Government has done.

With the Student Ombudsman—now up and running.

And with these bill today.

They are concrete examples of this Government's commitment to taking on the difficult issues.

To listening to the experts, and the advocates. And to our students.

And to designing, introducing and implementing reform which will make a real difference to the lives of people on our university campuses.

When the Minister for Education introduced this bill in the last parliament, he thanked the people who were involved in bringing it to the parliament.

It is worthwhile acknowledging them again today.

The Universities Accord Panel. The Working Group. The Expert Reference Group. Education Ministers across the country.

And most importantly then, and most importantly, now: to the advocates and the victim-survivors who have fought for this for so long.

People and organisations who worked for free, who devoted their time and their passion to making a change for their fellow students.

To make their lives safer.

This work is not finished, but today is another big step forward.

I commend the bill to the Chamber.

UNIVERSITIES ACCORD (NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION CODE TO PREVENT AND RESPOND TO GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2025

This bill is part of a package of two bills which together will implement the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence in universities.

This bill makes consequential amendments necessary to implement the measures in the main bill. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

I commend this bill to the Chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That departments and agencies be allocated to legislative and general purpose standing committees as follows:

Community Affairs

Health, Disability and Ageing

Social Services

Economics

Industry, Science and Resources Treasury

Education and Employment

Education Employment and Workplace Relations

Environment and Communications

Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (Communications, Sport and the Arts functions only)

Finance and Public Administration

Finance

Parliament

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Defence, including Veterans' Affairs Foreign Affairs and Trade

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Attorney-General Home Affairs

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development functions only).

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 July 2026:

The opportunities for the development of a hemp industry in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the potential contribution of an industrial hemp industry to:

(i) Australian farming systems, including compatibility with existing agricultural practices, soil health and water usage/conservation,

(ii) Australian manufacturing, including the production of textiles, bio-based plastics, health and food products,

(iii) the circular economy, including biodegradable materials and waste reduction,

(iv) the Australian construction industry, including the use of hemp-based materials and barriers to their adoption, and

(v) Australia's economy, including, but not limited to, job creation, export opportunities and regional development;

(b) research and development required to harness the full potential of the hemp industry;

(c) regulations related to hemp production, sale and distribution to domestic and export markets; and

(d) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Lambie, I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

(3) That the bill be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2025, and that the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee appointed in the previous parliament.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Lambie, I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

(3) That the bill be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2025, and that the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee appointed in the previous parliament.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

(3) That the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 August 2025, and that the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee appointed in the previous parliament.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hanson-Young, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion no. 6.

Before moving the motion, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Hanson-Young will also be sponsoring the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Grogan, McLachlan and Hanson-Young, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025:

The causes, frequency, scale and duration of recent algal blooms in South Australian marine and coastal environments, with particular reference to:

(a) contributing environmental, land management or water quality factors;

(b) ecological, economic, cultural and social impacts of algal blooms with particular reference to:

(i) tourism, commercial and recreational fishing industries,

(ii) regional and coastal communities, and

(iii) marine biodiversity and ecosystem health;

(c) the cultural and economic impacts on Indigenous communities, including any loss of access to traditional fishing;

(d) the coordination of state and federal government responses, including support, industry engagement and scientific advice;

(e) the current support and recovery arrangements for impacted industries and communities, including:

(i) financial support for fishing, tourism and other impacted businesses,

(ii) community resilience services, and

(iii) research, monitoring and restoration efforts;

(f) the adequacy of long-term monitoring, forecasting and prevention strategies, including funding and institutional support for marine science and environmental data collection; and

(g) any related matters

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Paterson, I withdraw general business notice of motion no. 6.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 7 relating to an order for the production of documents relating to online gambling.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025:

(a) any briefing documents to the Minister for Social Services that relate to online gambling or advertising of online gambling, including any relevant sections of the minister's incoming government brief; and

(b) the draft and/or final government response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs You win some, you lose more.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 8 relating to an order for the production of documents relating to online gambling.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025:

(a) any briefing documents to the Minister for Communications that relate to online gambling reform or advertising reform for online gambling, including any relevant sections of the minister's incoming government brief; and

(b) the draft and/or final government response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs You win some, you lose more.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 9 relating to an order for the production of documents relating to online gambling.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Monday, 18 August 2025, all written or digital correspondence, all attachments to any written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, file notes, meeting notices or minutes, or other records of interaction since 10 October 2024, related to online gambling reform, advertising reform for online gambling or the government response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs You win some, you lose more between the Prime Minister and his office and any of the following organisations, including any of their employees, agents or representatives:

(a) National Rugby League;

(b) Australian Football League;

(c) Responsible Wagering Australia;

(d) Sportsbet;

(e) Pointsbet;

(f) Bet365;

(g) Entain;

(h) Unibet;

(i) Tabcorp;

(j) any other wagering service provider; and

(k) any commercial media companies.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Public Service, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 29 July 2025, the final report of the review of public sector board appointments processes authored by Ms Lynelle Briggs AO.

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government won't be supporting the motions; I think notice of motion No. 6 related to this as well. The report referenced in these OPDs is being used to inform government decisions, and the report will be published on the APS reform website once that work is complete.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move general business notices of motion Nos 11, 12, 13 and 14 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 11

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than midday on 29 July 2025, the 2025 incoming government briefs presented to:

(a) the Minister for Social Services;

(b) the Assistant Minister for Social Services; and

(c) the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 12

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on 29 July 2025, the 2025 incoming government brief presented to the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 13

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Women, by no later than midday on 29 July 2025, the 2025 incoming government briefs presented to:

(a) the Minister for Women; and

(b) the Assistant Minister for Women.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 14

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 25 August 2025, all briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction regarding a westbound overpass on the New England Highway at Maitland Station held by:

(a) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the minister);

(b) the minister's office; and

(c) the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the following bills be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of each of the bills resume at the second reading stage:

(a) Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023;

(b) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024;

(c) Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025; and

(d) National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, budgets or other records of interaction from 16 January to 24 May 2025 between the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy or their office in relation to the public release of the draft 2025 electricity network options report, including the timing of the release.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 660, relating to Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation decision no. 2020/8704, on 18 November 2024,

(ii) in response, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water tabled a letter proposing to table the documents on 4 February 2025, and

(iii) over 5 months have elapsed since the new proposed tabling date, and the order still has not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister for the Environment and Water to comply with the order by no later than 9 am on 24 July 2025.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hanson-Young, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Tuesday, 29 July 2025, any approval conditions including draft versions provided to Woodside relating to the provisional approval of the North West Shelf extension (EPBC 2018/8335).

The question is that the motion be agreed to. A division being required, we will leave that until tomorrow.

At the request of Senator Hanson, I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the following bills be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bills resume at the second reading stage:

(a) Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019;

(b) Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025;

(c) Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021;

(d) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023;

(e) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023;

(f) Fair Work Amendment (Paid Reproductive Health Leave and Flexible Work Arrangements) Bill 2025;

(g) Great Australian Bight (World Heritage Protection) Bill 2025;

(h) Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025;

(i) Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024;

(j) Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015;

(k) Right to Protest Bill 2025; and

(l) Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025.

Question agreed to.

Senator Cash has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

The need for Prime Minister Albanese to prioritise Australia's alliance with the United States given Australia faces the most strategically challenging environment since World War II.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for Prime Minister Albanese to prioritise Australia's alliance with the United States given Australia faces the most strategically challenging environment since World War II.

At a time of global uncertainty and growing conflict but also a growing list of issues in the Australia-United States relationship, now is a time for the Australian government to be building our influence in Washington—not diminishing it, as has now been done. We need to make it clear that Australia stands with the country, the United States of America, that has long been a key foundation of our security and has been and continues to be the leader of the free world to which we, as Australians, proudly belong.

The Australia-US alliance in 2025 needs to be stronger than ever, not put on the backburner, as Mr Albanese, as the Prime Minister of Australia, has so shamefully done. In fact, a respected commentator recently posed this question: is Anthony Albanese actually trying intentionally, for reasons best known to himself, to diminish if not undermine the US-Australia alliance? You only need to go to his bizarre speech for the Curtin oration recently, which has been described as a 'look away from America' speech. That must have the heads scratching in Washington.

Australia's alliance with the United States has underpinned our national security and anchored our stability in our region, in particular, for over 70 years. At a time when our prime minister continually warns Australians that we face the most dangerous strategic environment since World War II, the Australia-US alliance remains vital. What is baffling, however, is that despite the Prime Minister's words he is not prioritising the Australia-US alliance. As I said, we need to make it clear—and I can tell you, on behalf of the coalition, we are making it clear—that we stand with the country, the United States, that has long been a key foundation of our security and has been and is the leader of the free world.

Our alliance is built on shared values, democracy, the rule of law, freedom of navigation and the belief that peace, which is what we all want, is best preserved through strength, forged in war, tested through the Cold War tensions and proven time and time again. From Korea to Vietnam, from Afghanistan to Iraq, our partnership with the United States has endured. Through the ANZUS treaty, our nations have made solemn commitments to each other's defence. In a dangerous world, our security depends on deep, active engagement with our closest ally. The alliance has evolved with each new challenge. Today it goes beyond defence of the great nation of Australia. It extends to cooperation on technology, intelligence and economic security. None more important than the AUKUS agreement, a legacy of the former coalition government. AUKUS strengthens Australia's technological edge and our ability to deter threats in an increasingly volatile region.

China's rapid military build-up and its unclear ambitions in the Indo-Pacific are real and growing threats. In the face of this, Australians expect their prime minister to lead, yet Anthony Albanese has shown weakness where strength is needed, complacency where urgency is demanded and silence where clear leadership is required. It has now been 260 days, or over that, since the United States election, and our prime minister has failed miserably to secure a face-to-face meeting with President Trump. Leaders from Europe and the Indo-Pacific have moved quickly to directly engage with the president. They are acting to protect their national interest. Our prime minister remains absent.

This failure on our prime minister's behalf has real consequences. There are no firm assurances on AUKUS, the most significant national security partnership entered into in generations. There has been no progress on lifting steel and aluminium tariffs that are hurting Australian exporters and putting thousands of jobs at risk. The Albanese government must face reality, and it must prioritise Australia's alliance with the United States.

Motions like this one show that the bottom of the barrel at the Liberal Party has not only been reached but well and truly scraped. There is something absolutely absurd about the suggestion that the United States alliance is not a priority for this government or for the Prime Minister. It's a mischievous suggestion but it is without foundation. To see that, we only need to look at the substance of the relationship across key areas.

The first thing I'd like to talk about is the 2024National defence strategy. It was released in April last year and it dealt with Australia's defensive priorities in the long term. It realigns certain aspects of how our defence posture will be structured, and it repeatedly affirmed the centrality and importance of the United States relationship. And that's a defence strategy that is under the Albanese Labor government, and that's a defence strategy that was, among others, authored by the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles. That defence strategy stated:

Our Alliance with the US remains fundamental to Australia's national security. We will continue to deepen and expand our defence engagement with the US, including by pursuing greater scientific, technological and industrial cooperation, as well as enhancing our cooperation under force posture initiatives.

We recently saw the cooperative war games exercise under Talisman Sabre, an example of the strength and closeness of the relationship in the defence context, which has been maintained and indeed, in aspects, strengthened by this prime minister and this government.

Australia's alliance with the United States is fundamental to our national security and the ADF's capacity to generate, sustain and project credible military capability. That includes projecting that credible military capability in our region in order to preserve those things that Senator Cash referred to—democracy, the rule of law, a rules based order and freedom of navigation. The US is also a key part of other aspects of our defence infrastructure in the region—the AUKUS treaty, the Five Eyes process and the Quad initiative. It is disappointing on this side of the chamber, however, to see that the Liberals still haven't listened, and they remain committed, or at least willing, to put political interest above national interest in this context. This is a topic on which I think it should be fairly obvious that there is bipartisan agreement—the centrality of the United States alliance to Australia's strategic influence in the region and to the stability in the region more broadly.

But, when it comes to the individual attacks on the Prime Minister, they are, again, without foundation. The Prime Minister has visited the United States five times since he was elected. We have continued to engage with the United States at all levels. Senator Cash mentioned tariffs. President Trump announced what he was going to do on tariffs, and a number of countries have had tariffs put upon them. But the government's decision to not put tariffs on American goods shows a focus on the national interest, a focus on ensuring that prices in Australia don't go up for Australian consumers.

At a broader level, it was not just the Prime Minister; it was Foreign Minister Penny Wong who was in Washington, DC, for the second time this year to participate in the Quad Foreign Ministers' Meeting recently. It's the comments and statements by Defence Minister Richard Marles. In Western Australia, it's the ever-growing presence of American submarines, sailors and soldiers as part of ongoing military integration through the AUKUS initiative. So, when we take a big step back, what we see is that there has been no deprioritisation of this relationship; it remains fundamental.

Order! It being 7.30, the time for the debate is interrupted by the adjournment hard marker, and I'm required to put the question on the urgency motion.

Question agreed to.

I rise to honour the remarkable contribution of former senator Catryna Bilyk, whose service to the people of Tasmania and this parliament was defined by compassion, conviction and an unwavering commitment to justice and the labour movement. Former senator Bilyk entered this chamber in 2008, bringing with her a wealth of experience as an early childhood educator, union organiser and adviser to Tasmanian Labor ministers. From Senator Bilyk's first speech to her final sitting day, she remained a tireless advocate for those whose voices are too often unheard: workers, children, families in grief and patients facing the end of life.

Her work championing workers' rights was grounded in her lived experience. As an industrial officer for the Australian Services Union she fought for fair conditions and training opportunities, helping establish the first union job skills program. In this place she continued that fight, working with the workplace relations minister to secure presumptive compensation for federal firefighters with cancer and pushing for reforms that strengthened protections for casual and contract workers—a legacy she should be immensely proud of.

Senator Bilyk's advocacy for brain cancer awareness was deeply personal. Diagnosed with two benign brain tumours, she transformed adversity into action. Senator Bilyk raised over $220,000 for research, chaired the Senate Select Committee into Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates and helped to unlock hundreds of millions of dollars for treatments that offer hope to families facing the bleakest of diagnoses. Senator Bilyk's tireless campaigning efforts led to improved access to the NDIS for brain tumour patients and saved vital services like the Australasian Shunt Registry and the national assistance card program.

To early childhood education Senator Bilyk brought both professional insight and policy acumen. She understood that the earliest years shape a child's future, and she fought to ensure educators were respected, resourced and recognised. Her voice was instrumental in debates around universal access, workforce development and child safety, always placing the wellbeing of children and families at the centre of her work. She was also a fierce advocate for stillbirth awareness and palliative care. Twice she helped save Palliative Care Tasmania from closure, ensuring that families across the state could access compassionate end-of-life support. Her work on stillbirth policy gave grieving parents the dignity of recognition and the promise of better care for others who will walk that painful path.

Beyond domestic policy, Senator Bilyk championed diplomacy and international cooperation. She worked to strengthen Australia's ties with our Asian neighbours, Japan and India in particular, recognising that regional stability and mutual respect are essential to our nation's interests. Her approach was grounded in dialogue, cultural understanding and a belief in a shared prosperity. Senator Bilyk's legacy is one of quiet strength and enduring impact. She served with humility, courage and a deep love for Tasmania. Her commitment to the labour movement is unrivalled, her advocacy unrelenting and her compassion unmatched.

She left this place with her head held high. I will miss her in this place as a colleague and a friend. As she steps away from this chamber, we thank her not just for the policies she shaped but for the lives she touched. Because of her service, Tasmania is stronger and this place is a better place. I want to thank her, too, because, during my time as shadow assistant minister for ageing, she was very supportive. She's also supported the work that I've done, over a very long time, raising awareness around dementia and my work with Dementia Australia. I want to thank her for that.

I want to wish her, in the next chapter of her life, a much healthier and a very happy life going forward. I hope that the next chapter for Robert and her will be a long and fulfilling one.

I want to place on the record that we thank her. I thank her for her friendship and support over those years. I think this place has been much better for it. When you bring lived experience to this place, it is a very powerful tool to raise awareness over all sorts of issues. (Time expired)

Understandably, some of us have been celebrating a new job post the election—a new job as a parliamentarian. But tonight I do want to focus on the thousands of Australians who are facing an uncertain future for their jobs. Right now, there is a rolling crisis affecting the nation's metals manufacturing industries, with at least 10 smelters and refineries facing an uncertain future—many with their hands out seeking government support—as they are crushed under the two pincers of ever-rising energy costs in this country and the aggressive industrial tactics of the Chinese Communist Party.

We should not forget—it has gone too unremarked—that, as a nation, we have effectively lost our nickel industry in the past year to these same issues. There have been 10,000 jobs lost in the Australian nickel industry in the last year. Only a few nickel mines are left and we no longer can smelt or refine nickel here in this country. Nickel is instructive and should be a lesson, for the government and for our nation, about how we've got things so wrong when it comes to manufacturing, despite the promises that have been made to us.

We were promised that this green energy future would be a boon for Australia's nickel industry, because nickel is one of the key components of many electric cars—of electric vehicle batteries. The most common battery has been a nickel-cobalt-lithium battery. The idea was that, when the climate-conscious consumers of Europe and North America went to buy their Tesla or their electric vehicle, they would want—they would demand—to have a battery that was made with green nickel, made with green energy. So that's what we and BHP went to try to do, and it has been a complete and utter failure. Surprise, surprise! No-one was paying a premium for green nickel. There is no premium for green nickel. And, while we wallowed in our gullible naivety, China came along and financed the construction of something like 20 coal-fired power stations in Indonesia, just in the last few years, and they've massively expanded their nickel production and cut us out of the market, and 10,000 jobs are now gone. As I say, it has gone largely unremarked. It's like we just move on and keep talking about this green energy stuff, saying, 'We're going to have a future made in Australia,' which is what the government says. But, under their watch, 10,000 jobs were lost in the industry; there was no future for those in the nickel industry.

Now there's an even broader and wider crisis emerging. In my part of the world, we are on the cusp, potentially, of losing the copper industry from North Queensland. Keep in mind that almost every bit of copper made in the world is made using techniques that were made and developed and invented in Mount Isa and Townsville. Mount Isa Mines, now owned by Glencore, developed the technology that underpins the modern manufacturing of copper. We should be very proud of that.

It would be an absolute national shame and embarrassment if, under this so-called Labor government's watch, that industry were to depart our shores. But that is a real prospect right now because, as I say, they can't afford to pay these enormous prices for power. Three-digit prices per megawatt hour for power are unsustainable for a competitive metals manufacturing industry. The making of metals, while complex, is basically the application of enormous amounts of energy to valuable rocks to make them even more valuable, and, with our energy prices, that just can't happen.

Clearly, the Chinese government has an explicit strategy to bankrupt many of these facilities in Western nations, and that strategy is to then monopolise that market and control it for themselves. They have done this in rare earths. They've done this in steel. They've done this in lithium. And the Labor Party's own resources minister, Madeleine King, warned a couple of weeks ago that China is looking to do that in copper and lithium now. Why aren't the government listening to their own resources minister's warnings? We all saw the Prime Minister travel to China for six days last week, and this issue got nary a mention. The Prime Minister did not seem to mention at all that the tactics of the Chinese government have cost 10,000 Australian jobs and that we're now on the cusp of losing tens of thousands more jobs unless something is done.

This is happening on the government's watch. They promised a future made in Australia. They promised Australians lower power prices. They promised Australian businesses they'd have lower power prices and more jobs in manufacturing. Nothing has happened. All we've got is words. Rhetoric is not going to pay the bills. Fancy speeches in this house are not going to keep manufacturing jobs in this country. We need to fight for them and come back to a planet called reality and start looking after Australia first.

BARBARA POCOCK () (): Labor has made improving productivity central to its second-term agenda. The question of fair distribution of productivity gains should be central in this debate, and discussion of a four-day week for hardworking Australians must be part of that agenda. The last 10 years have seen productivity gains through the hard work of Australians flow to higher profits for business much more than to workers' wages. Indeed, profits have increased at twice the pace of wages over the last decade—97 per cent compared to just 50 per cent. That is hardly fair.

On top of this, Australians are working longer and harder and, too often, are underpaid for the work they do. What's more, we are on the edge of an AI revolution which will turbocharge productivity in many jobs. Any conversation about productivity in our country needs to focus on how to fairly share productivity gains with those who generate them—that is, workers. Historically, for much of the last century and the one before, the mechanism for doing this was through reductions in working time. It's time to return to that tradition.

Australia once led the world on reductions in working hours. In 1856, when the stonemasons won the eight-hour day, we were at the international cutting edge. In 2023, we led the world with the Greens-led groundbreaking right to disconnect to tame the technologically driven availability creep that, without a right to disconnect, turns our homes, commutes and weekends into boundaryless sweat. It's been 40 years since the last reduction in working hours in our country, despite very significant increases in productivity which have not been fairly shared with workers. It's time to revisit working hours.

Unions, businesses, workers and the Greens are calling on the Labor government to pave the way for a four-day working week. We Greens took a policy to pave the way for that working week to the 2025 election, and we want to work with the Labor government to deliver on it. Our model for shorter working hours would see Australians working 80 per cent of their normal hours with no loss of pay. We want to see coordinated, properly evaluated, nationwide four-day-week trials across a range of industries. Right now, people's lives are stretched too thin, with many juggling demanding jobs alongside caring for their kids, parents and loved ones. By changing the way we work, people can have more time for family, community and leisure while addressing the incredible and debilitating imbalance between those who have too much working time and those who have too little.

The evidence shows that shorter working hours are good for our mental and physical health. They improve gender equity at home, as men do more domestic work and care, and they help address staff shortages. The research evidence is really clear: shorter hours are a win for workers, for workplaces, for productivity, for homes and for our community. Australian workers deserve more time to live, not just work. Countries all around the world are moving to a shorter working week. Four-day-week trials have begun successfully and have been rolled out in the UK, New Zealand, Belgium, Iceland, Sweden and Japan, and they are on their way here in the ACT.

This week, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation have called on the government to consider shorter working hours at the upcoming productivity summit. In 2023, the ASU won shorter working hours with no loss of pay for their workers at Oxfam and in a number of other workplaces. Almost two-thirds of Australian workers, 63 per cent, support fewer hours per week with no loss of pay. Many businesses are adopting a shorter working week. Both Unilever and Medibank are running a 12-month trial of shorter working hours with no loss of pay and have reported that employees are happier and productivity is stable.

The momentum to pave the way for shorter working hours in Australia is here. We are already comfortable with flexible working hours, working from home and disconnecting from our jobs after hours. A four-day work week is the obvious next step. Australia, it's time to take back our week. We in the Greens are keen to work with Labor to make that happen. Labor claims to be a party of workers. If this is still true, we should see a focus on shorter hours as part of the productivity debate. Without it, we're just at another talkfest where technologies drive up profit and leave workers and their families behind in an outdated, unfair working-hours regime appropriate for last century, not this one.

At the last election, Australians delivered a clear and difficult message to the Liberal Party. Sussan Ley is right to say that we were 'smashed' at the last election, and we are going to take the time, as she said rightly, to listen and earn back the trust of Australians. But what I want to talk about and acknowledge briefly tonight is the work of our many members and our many volunteers, hardworking, grassroots people who worked their guts out, literally, to help support our candidates. I can't name everybody, but I would like to name some of the people that I've worked with across my duty seat, and hopefully at the end, if it's okay with the government, I will be able to incorporate some further names in Hansard.

In Bennelong: our candidate Scott Yung; Christine Kelly; Krish Nair; Alessio Maise; Mayor Trenton Brown; Deputy Mayor Sophie Lara-Watson; Councillor Daniel Han; Councillor Keanu Arya; Councillor Kathy Tracey; Councillor Cameron Last; Councillor Shweta Deshpande; Councillor Justin Li; Jeanette Oujani; Melissa Soraya; Keenan Smith; Frank Moshfeghi; Armen Arakelian; Aiden Lee; Nora and Artin Etmekdjian; Chris Galloway; and Hassib Elias.

In Bradfield: Ben Howell; Matt Kong; Lianda and Johannes Stoel; Rob and Margie Schuitema; Jenny Powell; John Edwards; Jam Xia; Maria Chan; Sally Betts; Andrew Cheng; Adrian Batterby; Catherine, Georgia, Alexandra and Millie Lowden; Sarine Soghomonian; Geoff and Ros Jarrett; Guy and Robyn Campbell; Peter and Marika Lorschy; Alan and Lindy Lipman; Gretta Howard; James Thompson; Barbara and John Edwards; Alexia Lancaster; Jon Stewart; Suresh Manickam; and Chris and Lara Alchian.

In Paterson: Laurence Antcliff, our candidate, and his family, Kyra, Ebony, Mayah and Lachlan; James Peters; Tim and Kate Peters; Councillor Nathan Errington; Councillor Mitchell Griffin; Ian Robb; Julian Leembruggen; Brooke Vitnell; Ben Mitchell; Zach Bayliss; Megan Williams; Jordan Andrews; Jack Franklin; Kevin Lynch; and Charntelle Kay.

In Newcastle, Asarri McPhee, our candidate, and Pearl, his fiancee; Councillor and Deputy Lord Mayor Callum Pull; Peter McCarthy; Blake Keating; Brad Luke; Lachlan Stronach; Suzanne Evans; Natarsha Mann; Councillor Jason Pauling; and Councillor Jenny Barrie.

Thank you to all of you and to the additional people whose names I'll incorporate into Hansard. I would like to acknowledge you for your hard work and your contributions to our democracy. Thank you. I seek leave to incorporate the additional names into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

I would also like to acknowledge:

In Bradfield:

Andrew Chen

Michelle Chuang

Stuart Roberts

Doug Hunt

Gregg Creevey

K. Philips

Cheng Chen

Jim Whitehead

Sebastian

Pat Buchan

Pam McClelland

Kerry Heywood

Anna Karelas

Peymon and Aryan Ikhani

Ken Ramsay

Armen Arakelian

Peter O'Hanlon

Lisa Paulssen

Morad Wasile

Vicky and Brett Kvisle

John Dean

Dennis Bluth

Chris White

Scott Vincent

Alan Franklin

Robert Block

Angus Moody

Cedric Spencer

Roy McCullough

Andy West

Martin Ryan

David Robinson

David Knox

Roger Grinter

Michael Lane

Moya Morris

Adrian McCoomb

Jonathan Ackerman

Ruth Browne

Cyril Shilansky

Michelle Lam-Li

Kerrie O'Brien

Michael French

Patricia Forsyth

Jono Hermann

Jack Okill

Amanda Beattie

Romeo Kekic

Harry Kekic

Vanda Gould

Ceasar Boehme

Chantelle Fornari-Osmond

Lang, Camille and Margaux Silver

Wad McKash

Wendy McKash

Sebastian Majarian

Lara Ferhad

Adrian McComb

Danielle der Bedrossian

Karly Abbott

Kathy Quinn

Charlotte Mortlock

And in Shortland:

Emma King and James King

Sam McCarthy

Graeme Rogers

Brendan Tate

Cr Matt Schultz

Rodd Chapman

Phil Elmes

Diane Volker

Change is coming. Following One Nation's best ever federal election result in May, our party leader Senator Pauline Hanson declared on national TV, 'This is not the end of an election; this is the start of a movement.' The public have already responded, with party membership surging and their post-election poll support increasing. This was a trying election, though. Micro-parties on the conservative side fought One Nation harder than they fought our political opponents on the communist left. So many called for a coalition of conservative parties, an idea that sounds great in theory yet created an unworkable Frankenstein, setting our movement back years to allow the organisation and recalibration needed to merge disparate political positions, if indeed it were possible at all. Australia does not have years to lose. The lights are going off in this parliamentary term. One more term from Labor or the globalist Liberals and Australia will be past the point of no return.

One Nation has been here for 28 years. Our party's character has been forged in success and in failure, and in legal warfare, media bastardry, lies and party infiltration—even prison charges that were trumped up and ultimately struck down. Every development has made us stronger, more determined, more organised and readier than ever to take the government benches from those who do not govern in the best interests of Australia. Only One Nation has the strength of conviction, the unity of purpose and the courage necessary to restore abundance and opportunity to all Australians. Only One Nation represents the entire Australian people.

Let me give you an example that 12 Tasmanian senators ignored—none of whom are One Nation senators, which is why I'm having to raise this. There's a new crisis in regional banking services because Bendigo Bank is now closing 10 branches and 28 agencies. Five of the branches are the last banks in their towns. For those communities, that is devastating.

This is happening because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has ignored the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia. The government was supposed to respond within 90 days. It's been 14 months, and the government has simply ignored it. The inquiry lasted 15 months and held 13 public hearings, with locals in town after town testifying that the banks were lying when they claimed people didn't need branches anymore. The report observed:

When banks close their branches in regional areas, the impact on individuals and communities can be devastating and far-reaching, especially when it is the last bank in town.

This is what Queenstown in Tasmania is facing when it loses its Bendigo Bank branch in September. This is not only the last bank in town; it's the last bank on the entire West Coast of Tasmania. The locals will have no choice and will be forced to drive 2½ hours over icy mountain roads to the next closest bank, in Burnie. On Tuesday night the West Coast Council passed a unanimous motion calling on the Albanese government to respond to the Senate inquiry—to respond!

There's no doubt that, had the government responded to the report and its powerful recommendations, it's unlikely Bendigo Bank would be closing these branches. It's a scandal for this government to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on an inquiry into rural banking services and then ignore the outcome because it might interfere with the banks' cashless society agenda. I call on all senators to join me in demanding that the government take the Senate inquiry outcome seriously and fully implement all its recommendations.

I now make note of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's disgraceful attempt to sabotage my office over the last few weeks. The Prime Minister cancelled the positions of my two advisers and then this week arranged their notices of dismissal. I am their employer. They don't work for you, Mr Prime Minister; they work for me. How dare you terminate my staff? What gives you the right to select my team? Using parliamentary staffing allocations to take all the staff of an Independent or crossbench senator breaks a convention, a trust, going back a hundred years. Denying me and Senator Whitten, Senator Stacey and Senator Payman any advisers at all is a disgraceful act.

One Nation has always welcomed policy debates and contests in the court of public opinion. This prime minister, though, would rather shut the opposition up than debate his rancid, divisive, wasteful policies with the one party prepared to provide real opposition, better policies and a real vision to restore Australia's abundance—a vision that looks after the Australian people, instead of Labor Party donors, unions and globalist powers. What a bloody disgrace! This is not over.

Senate adjourned at 19:53