I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The reason the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 has been recommitted for debate in the 48th Parliament is that the maladministration, the integrity failures and the performance failures of this housing scheme are one of the greatest failures of public policy in my lifetime. And this is a fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which holds $10 billion of the people's money. So far, the scoreboard for this fund, for $10 billion, is the acquisition of 300 houses, thereby making the housing crisis worse. Who could imagine that the government of Australia would be competing with people in a constrained housing market? Three hundred houses acquired and 17 houses built in the Australian Capital Territory—that's the scoreboard so far, for $10 billion. It's not going well.

But the broader issue here goes to the integrity of public finances—$10 billion. This integrity bill is designed to ensure that these funds will not be plundered by the criminal mafia elements of the CFMEU and its related party fund, the Cbus organisation. The CFMEU is responsible for a 30 per cent premium on apartment buildings in parts of Australia. For many younger Australians, their first house is not going to be a standalone brick-built house; it will be a small apartment. This 30 per cent CFMEU criminal mafia tax on Australian housing, brought to you by the Labor Party, should not be tolerated.

What we have here is a $10 billion fund of taxpayers' money which could, in fact, be used to go into business with those same people. The people that brought you the housing crisis, the CFMEU, could actually have their fund, the Cbus fund, engaged by the Housing Australia Future Fund. That is an outrage, so this bill principally seeks to exclude that organisation—or any organisation connected with the criminal mafia elements of the CFMEU—from accessing taxpayer funds. That is the point of this bill.

We have seen, over these last few years, a very, very close relationship between the CFMEU, Cbus and the Labor Party. After the government won the 2022 election, one of their first acts was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission. If ever you needed evidence that this is a government for vested interests, that is it—one of its first acts was to abolish the strong cop on the beat.

We saw during the last parliament very close engagement between the Cbus super fund and the government. In fact, the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, filed a false public interest immunity claim with this parliament to protect documents given to him by Cbus, which is chaired by his former boss, Mr Wayne Swan, who's also the president of the Labor Party. Mr Chalmers filed a false public interest immunity claim to protect documents from being exposed to public glare which were mainly about private lobbying that the Cbus fund was engaging in because it didn't want to disclose certain taxes and fees to its members. This was very untransparent and a very large failure of integrity.

So it doesn't surprise me that in the Sydney Morning Herald today there is the headline, 'Secretive Albanese government goes backward on transparency'. This government has gone out of its way to obfuscate, to block freedom-of-information requests and to frustrate the Senate's requests for documents. We are paid to do these jobs here in Canberra, to get to the bottom of problems, to expose wrongdoing and to give the Australian people the transparency that they deserve in a liberal democracy. This government has gone out of its way to block those processes from being properly undertaken. All you have to do is go through and look at the documents tabled in response to orders for the production of documents provided to this Senate; they are replete with black out. There's more blacked out than there is text, whether it's for an FOI or an OPD.

As I say, what happened in the last parliament was that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth filed a false public interest immunity claim to protect his mate Mr Swan and Cbus. The reason we know the contents of that secret lobbying is not that the parliamentary process worked under the government. It is not. We know because of the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner assessed the FOI and found that there was no case for a commercial-in-confidence claim by Mr Chalmers, that this was secret lobbying and that the public deserved to know. Thank God for the Information Commissioner! Or, since I'm an atheist, thank 'goodness' for the Information Commissioner. But we shouldn't have to rely on the Information Commissioner. The government treats the parliament like garbage. They have no respect for our constitutional obligations to hold them to account. They have no genuine commitment to the promises they made about integrity and transparency. The numbers, as published in the Sydney Morning Herald today, give you all the evidence that is required.

Coming back to this bill, we have been able to, because of a largely blacked out OPD, discover the details of the first round of the Housing Australia Future Fund tender. In that tender, the government has given significant funds to an organisation called Assemble, which apparently is going to be building houses in Melbourne. The site and the legal description of the buildings are blacked out, of course. It's top secret. We shouldn't be able to know where taxpayer funds are going to build houses! The funding arrangements through the availability payments, which is how the taxpayer funds are transferred to organisations like Assemble, are also blacked out.

We are not allowed to know how taxpayer funds are being expended in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund, and the relevance here between Assemble, the CFMEU and Cbus is that this is a consortium of super funds. This is the government funnelling money through the Housing Australia Future Fund to their favourite vested interests, the big super funds, that they want to make the perpetual landlords of Australians. The government's agenda in housing is to give money to the super funds so that they can own houses that Australians can never own because the government is more focused on the narrow, vested interests of their favourite constituencies—the unions, the super funds and all the other bloodsuckers—than they are on the interests of working Australians. They think it's better that a big institutional fund—it could be a super fund, it might be the Qatari sovereign investment fund, which they've given a tax cut to, so they can own build-to-rent houses for 15 years that will never be owned by Australians. They don't care. Their agenda is institutions first and the people last, because they have become the party of organised vested interests and the party of organised capital.

So the reason that this amendment to the housing program is needed is that there can be no place for criminal mafia elements of the CFMEU in the nation's housing program. As bad as this program is, in terms of its failure to deliver—after two years of operation, it has delivered 17 houses in the capital territory, and it has acquired 300 houses, making the housing crisis worse—surely, everyone here would agree that taxpayer funds shouldn't be going to the CFMEU and its constituent bodies. We shouldn't forget that the CFMEU has been put into administration by this parliament. But the CFMEU still controls a number of board seats on the Cbus fund. It still appoints board members to the super fund, even though it's in administration, and the trust that holds the licence that owns the Cbus fund is owned by the CFMEU in part—21 per cent.

We're living in a country where a union can be put into administration by the parliament, but it can still own a massive retirement fund, and that retirement fund, which makes distributions back to that union in administration, can apparently participate in a taxpayer funded housing scheme. It is very regrettable that we are in this situation, and we want the government to be the best government it can be, but the reason it's failed on housing and has built fewer houses than the last government is that it's put all of its faith in Canberra based bureaucracies which don't build houses, and it's obsessed over its favourite vested interests.

The housing crisis will never be solved by a singular Canberra bureaucracy. The government needs to go out there and talk to the people who are needed to solve this housing crisis. It may shock you, Deputy President, but Canberra bureaucrats don't build many houses. They shuffle a lot of papers—very well, I'm sure, and I'm certain there are many paper cuts. But the people who build houses are builders, tradespeople and developers. The government needs to talk to these people to work out how it might actually achieve its target because, under the last coalition government, on average, there were 200,000 houses built every year. Under this government, we're down to 170,000 houses a year, despite allowing more than a million people into the country. This government has presided over a massive collapse in housing. They have built bureaucracy and not houses. They have wasted billions of dollars on bureaucracies, which don't build many houses, and, apparently, they are allowed to get into bed with the criminal mafia elements of the CFMEU and Cbus.

In closing, the government has talked a big game on transparency and integrity. We know that it has failed to deliver on its proper obligations in relation to FOIs and OPDs. It has been the most secretive government in living memory and it has presided over a disgraceful maladministration of taxpayer funds in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund.

One small change the government could make to improve the governance integrity of this scheme is to guarantee the Australian people that taxpayer funds will not be exposed to the people who helped cause the housing crisis—the CFMEU, the same people who added a 30 per cent tax to new apartments, which squeezed the life out of the Australian dream for young people. Young people can't get a first apartment because of the CFMEU's 30 per cent tax, brought to you by the Labor Party. These people should not have access to taxpayer funds, and I urge the Senate to look at this clearly and cleanly and to vote for integrity when this comes to a vote.

We might have begun a new parliament, but it seems like nothing much has changed with those opposite. What we see with this bill is the same tired attempt to play politics, with ideological attacks on superannuation and unions, at a time when Australians are crying out for real action on housing. While the Albanese government is focused on building more homes and delivering more affordable homes across the country, those opposite are once again choosing to waste the time of this Senate with legislation that does nothing to address the actual challenges in front of us. Frankly, we are sick and tired of it. Australians who are struggling to get into the housing market just want action on new homes.

Let me state this plainly and simply. This proposed bill reveals a deep misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation, of how both the Housing Australia Future Fund and Australia's superannuation system work. It also repeats a series of misleading claims about Cbus Super and its relationship with the CFMEU—claims that, again, do nothing to further the national interest and everything to serve a narrow political agenda.

This bill shows Senator Bragg has no idea how the Housing Australia Future Fund even works, so let's start with some of the facts. Cbus Super is not the CFMEU. Cbus is a profit-to-member industry superannuation fund and one of Australia's best-performing funds, with more than 900,000 members and $90 billion in funds under management. It exists to deliver strong long-term retirement outcomes for its hardworking members—not 'bloodsuckers'—many of whom have spent decades working on construction sites, in trades, in building and in allied industries, building our homes.

Cbus has a longstanding commitment and has been a leading fund, in fact, in providing investment capital to deliver affordable and social housing in Australia. In fact, since 2019, Cbus has invested more than $150 million in Housing-Australia-issued bonds—including at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when it provided construction finance for more than 150 apartments being built for a community housing provider. They, just like many other profit-to-member funds, do this solely for the best financial interests of members, as required by the law, aiming for this through a diversified portfolio of which investment in housing is just one part.

This is not theory and it is not ideology. In the case of their investment in construction finance, it is real, tangible investment that delivers real homes for real people. So to suggest, as this bill does, that Cbus is somehow unfit to engage in affordable housing finance is not only wrong; it is offensive to the hardworking Australians whose superannuation savings have helped make these projects possible.

I would also like to draw the chamber's attention to the former member for Deakin, Michael Sukkar, in his former role as the Minister for Housing. In 2020 he issued a media release to announce the pilot program for additional community housing. In this media release, he acknowledged the important role of Cbus in supporting a joint debt funding package with Housing Australia—formerly the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—to deliver social and affordable housing in New South Wales.

I move now to the HAFF. This bill is built on the flawed assumption that super funds like Cbus are recipients of HAFF funding. Let me be clear: they are not. The Housing Australia Future Fund does not distribute taxpayer money to superannuation funds. That is not how the Housing Australia Future Fund works. What actually happens is this: super funds, which must act in the best financial interests of their members, may choose to provide debt financing to community providers or project proponents. These proponents, in turn, may be applying for support from the HAFF. The superannuation fund is not a recipient of HAFF money; it is a co-investor, a lender, an external financier. To legislate to prohibit the HAFF from supporting any project that happens to have received private financing from a particular superannuation fund, as Senator Bragg proposes, is not just bad policy; it would severely limit the pool of investment available to help build social and affordable housing in our country. And, as we have already heard time and time again in this place, and just in the last two days of the 48th Parliament, this country desperately needs more housing.

This is yet another example of those opposite blocking, instead of supporting, the building of affordable homes for Australians—blockers, not builders. At a time when Australia is facing a serious housing shortage, when we need all levels of government, all sources of capital and all sectors working together, this bill would drive capital away. It would make it harder to get housing projects off the ground—blocking, not building. To address housing affordability, it is necessary to tackle issues around supply. As the Australian population increases, we need to build more dwellings and more infrastructure. This bill would in fact do the opposite of what we are all seeking to do.

I turn now to Cbus's governance. There were some concerns raised about that. Let us also be clear about why this bill has come about. It is because of questions about how Cbus is governed, given its association with the CFMEU. In some senses, for those watching in the general public, it is fair to probe this question, given that this government, in the last term, did act on serious governance concerns with that union. Let's clarify those concerns. Cbus is not run by the CFMEU. The CFMEU does not own Cbus. The fund is overseen by a 14-person trustee board made up of two independent directors, six employer nominated directors and six union nominated directors. This is an equal representation model that is a longstanding, bipartisan feature of Australia's superannuation system, which we should all be proud of, because it has delivered long-term, secure returns for the retirement of Australian workers. It ensures both employers and workers have a seat at the table. All directors of funds must meet the same high standards of governance, integrity and accountability. Under law, superannuation fund directors are subject to a strict fit and proper person test. They are required to act in the best financial interests of members—not unions, not employers, not government.

The prudential regulator, APRA, monitors this rigorously. In fact, APRA has recently imposed additional licence conditions on both Cbus and BUSSQ, requiring them to engage an independent expert to assess whether their governance arrangements meet legal and regulatory standards. This is how oversight should work: through an independent regulator, not through ad hoc legislation in this chamber driven by political vendettas.

And let's not forget about this important additional fact: in the current rounds of HAFF funding, Cbus has not participated in any transactions. That's right—despite all the noise, the bill is targeting a fund that has not even participated in HAFF funded projects to date.

Cbus, like any other responsible investor, will assess on a case-by-case basis whether a project aligns with its members' financial interests, and that is how it should be. So what then is this bill all about? Well, we don't have to guess; Senator Bragg and his colleagues have made it very clear. This bill is about undermining union influence. It is about reviving tired culture war battles that the Australian public have well and truly had enough of and moved past.

But let's not conflate that process with the operation of our superannuation system or with the Housing Australia Future Fund. They are separate issues and they must be treated as such. To use concerns about union conduct as a pretext for gutting investment in affordable housing is not only unjustified; it is reckless and dangerous because the stakes here are too high. We are facing a national housing shortage. Australians are struggling to buy their first home. Renters are being squeezed harder than ever. Essential workers—teachers, nurses and early childhood educators—are being priced out of the communities that they serve. That is why the Albanese government is doing the hard work to build more homes.

We've legislated the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund—the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. We've committed to delivering 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the fund's first five years. We're delivering 10,000 affordable rental homes through the National Housing Accord and incentivising the states and territories to match it. We've created the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver more homes more quickly. And we've made the single largest investment ever in remote housing for First Nations communities.

We're supporting renters through the first back-to-back increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years. We're backing renters and first home buyers. We've expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme, helping more than 150,000 Australians get into the housing market sooner. And we've brought together National Cabinet to drive reforms, like a better deal for renters, so that the more than seven million Australians who rent can have a fairer, more secure experience. That is our focus, not playing political games, not attacking super funds and not dragging the public debate into the weeds of culture wars. We're getting on with the job of reaching our ambitious target of 1.2 million homes by 2029.

The Housing Australia Future Fund is not a political process. It is an independent investment vehicle administered by the board of Housing Australia in accordance with a strict investment mandate. More than 670 applications were received in the first round of the HAFF, representing more than 50,000 dwellings. Those applications are being assessed on merit. Funding will go to the most competitive, well-governed and impactful projects. And that's what this bill fundamentally and wilfully misunderstands or seeks to undermine. It wants to pick and choose who can participate in building Australia's housing future based on ideology rather than merit, and that is just not how good policy is made.

If Senator Bragg is serious about addressing Australia's housing crisis, then I urge those opposite to stop playing political games and start supporting policies that will actually make a difference. Pass the legislation. Support the programs. Back the investment. Australians are tired of division; they want cooperation, they want delivery and they want outcomes. We've seen that in the resounding result in the May federal election, which was a historic election outcome. Australians want governments that build homes; they don't want governments that argue about it.

Superannuation is one of Australia's greatest policy successes. It delivers dignity in retirement; it pools our national savings; and it provides long-term capital for infrastructure, housing and job-creating projects. Superannuation funds, including industry funds, operate under strict laws, rigorous regulatory oversight and a clear duty to act in the best financial interests of members. The equal representation model has delivered strong performance and stable governance for decades. We should not be debating whether or not to tear it down based on political expediency and ideology. Let's not waste this Senate's time targeting individual funds for doing their job, investing in Australia, creating homes and supporting workers. Let's call this bill out for what it is: a bad-faith attack on a system that works wrapped in the language of accountability but fuelled by ideology. Let's return our focus to what matters: governing and delivering for Australians; building homes for Australians; and helping Australians find a home, live in dignity and retire with security. Thank you.

I rise to speak to the opposition's Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024. The coalition has a long history of attacking unions and workers' access to and influence over capital. This bill is a thinly veiled extension of this conservative campaign. The bill would prevent the Housing Australia Future Fund from investing in assets with Cbus Super, the industry fund for construction workers. We are in a housing crisis, and now is not the time to be preventing super funds from investing in housing projects. Both major parties are not taking the scale of this issue seriously enough. They have both entered this parliament with a handful of meek offerings that will do little to challenge the massive problems in our housing market.

In a wealthy country like ours, housing should not be something Australians struggle to get access to. It's shameful, and we need immediate, big and structural reforms. Tinkering at the edges will not cut it. Ask any young person in your life who you hang out with or who you know. They are struggling with facing a housing market that overwhelms them. Ask anyone who has just divorced and is starting out again in housing. They are also overwhelmed. And ask the women—the many women, too many—who are reluctantly staying in dangerous housing for want of decent, affordable options.

If we needed any more evidence on this, then just this morning we have today's Domain House Price Report, which shows increases in prices of houses and apartments in every capital city in the last three months. It's the first time in four years—and, of course, that's the entire regime of a Labor government—that we've seen such increases in all capital cities, all on Labor's watch. It is the first time for two years that we've seen this for units across our country and our cities. In Sydney and Melbourne, we're looking at the fastest quarterly growth in years. In Sydney a 2.6 per cent increase to a $1.7 million median house price is really frightening for people trying to get into the market. In Melbourne a 2.3 per cent increase to just over a million dollars is a three-year high.

Yesterday we had news of increases in homelessness of 10 per cent in our country since Labor came to power and a 14 per cent increase in homelessness for women. Right now the housing system in Australia is stacked in favour of property investors, banks and property developers. Just look at the tax concessions set to cost the public purse $176 billion over the next decade—these concessions turbocharge housing demand and take housing out of the realm of possibility for so many Australians who work diligently to save money every week—and watch the possibility for them to own their own home drift away into the future.

In Australia the crisis for renters and those trying to purchase their first home continues to get worse, and there are 37,800 people experiencing chronic homelessness across our country, living precarious lives without safe housing. Meanwhile, through our tax system, our major parties allow housing investors to access huge financial advantages to outbid first home buyers at auctions around our country and to drive rental prices through the roof. Alarmingly, less than one per cent of rental properties are affordable at minimum wage at present. Lack of housing is a runaway engine driving inequality in our country, and it's a major force of intergenerational inequality across the nation.

The two major parties have let the housing crisis get this bad, and it is a disgrace. Make no mistake, both major parties have knowingly created a housing policy environment that is driving runaway prices. The scale of this problem cannot be reduced to a lack of ambition or optimism amongst those governing our country. The housing crisis in Australia is a choice made by our governments, and both major parties continue to choose it through choosing policy failures.

My hope for every Australian is that Labor uses their majority in this parliament to change this. But they need to do more than just build 1.2 million homes by 2029—a program that we know from Treasury is already very unlikely. In fact, from their assessment, it won't be met. Supply is part of the answer, but ignoring the question of demand is a red flag, and if you think we can fix our massive housing crisis with tweaks to building regulation and rolling back housing regulation and deliver housing abundance—as said in the book that the Treasurer wants us all to read; and I have read it—then you've got rocks in your head.

Reducing regulation will not deal with our housing crisis in any significant way. As long as we're giving massive tax breaks to investors, they are significantly advantaged in our housing market, and we are just building homes for them to buy, not for the first home buyers and the renters in this country who really need a roof over their heads. Labor must reform negative gearing and the capital gains discount to ensure that the 1.2 million homes don't just get hoovered up by investors who will treat them as assets. Instead, we need hardworking Australians to have access to those homes, and they need to have access to affordable housing. The housing crisis can't be fixed by reforms that will just push up house prices while the key historic drivers of house price growth are overlooked.

While the major parties play politics with housing up here in Canberra, people all over Australia are experiencing the devastating reality of soaring rents, crippling mortgage stress, acute homelessness, increasing homelessness and a lack of truly affordable homes. So what do we need? Well, not this bill. What the major parties offer are tweaks and handouts, and the Greens are clear: only bold, structural reform will return housing to being a right to a roof over your head and not an investment.

Three things are critical. Firstly, we want to make housing more affordable for renters. The proportion of the population who are renting has been increasing significantly over recent decades across all age brackets, with growing numbers of Australians now expecting to rent for their entire lives. They face unlimited rent increases and rents that are unaffordable to people on the minimum wage in every one of our capital cities, and we need to cap rents. Tenancy laws in Australia give renters little security or ability to plan for the long term and to feel a sense of control over their home and little protection from those unlimited rent increases. It's essential that Australia strengthens tenancy protections for renters to ensure the growing proportion of people renting long-term are not treated as second-class citizens but are instead able to enjoy stable, affordable housing, which we know is so critical especially to kids living in those homes. It is essential that we end the prospect of unlimited rent increases.

Secondly, we need to make sure that housing becomes a roof-over-the-head proposition, not just an investment prospect. We particularly need to focus on the question of public housing. The declining role of the state in building housing stock in our country, both for sale to owner-occupiers and for affordable rent through the public housing system, has significantly contributed to the decline in housing affordability both for renters and for first home buyers in our housing market. If you look around the world, countries with affordable housing all have one thing in common: they have a large role for the public sector in housing. In a housing crisis, the supply of homes cannot be left to private developers, whose profits increase the more that house prices and rents go up. Thirdly, we need to phase out tax concessions for wealthy housing investors.

Australia Institute research tells us that the supply of new housing in recent times has outstripped population growth in the last decade. In the last 10 years, the population has increased by 15 per cent. Over that same period, the number of dwellings has increased by 19 per cent. Despite the supply of new dwellings growing faster than the population, house prices increased 75 per cent over that period. Building more homes alone won't fix the affordability housing problem in this country.

A major driver of house price increases is the increasing demand fuelled by the tax treatment of residential property in Australia, in particular negative gearing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount. Since the capital gains tax discount was introduced in Australia, house price growth has rapidly outstripped wage growth. We know that 82 per cent of the benefit of the capital gains discount goes to the top 10 per cent of earners. It is an obscenely unequal tax benefit that delivers to the top end of town—the very top 10 per cent of our income scale. What hope does a hardworking wage earner have to save a deposit and break into that market when they're competing with people with massive tax advantages in their back pockets at that Saturday morning auction? Phasing out these tax concessions would make housing more affordable and equitably distributed in Australia. If we truly want to solve our housing crisis, we have to reform capital gains tax and negative gearing.

Productivity and tax reform are on the agenda for this Labor government. Pressure is building for capital gains tax reform to be taken seriously. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns backs taking a fresh look at tax breaks that disadvantage first home buyers. A recent Essential poll found that half of Australians back action to reduce these tax concessions. Support out there is growing, and we know that many members of Labor's own party are supportive of tackling tax concessions too. They know in their hearts that these are unfair and must be changed. In 2017, even Jim Chalmers said, 'If you're not doing anything meaningful about negative gearing and the capital gains tax, then you're not doing anything meaningful about housing affordability,' and he was right. We know he was right, and many people in the Labor Party know that he was right.

Housing and homelessness will remain a key campaign and focus of the Greens this parliament. We care about people who are looking for housing to live in rather than hold as an investment. We care about people for whom rents in so many of our cities—where they can find a rental property—are so high that the cost of living means they are excluded and made incredibly insecure in their housing. Many of them get tipped over into homelessness. The crisis gets exponentially worse every day that the government fails to act appropriately. We are determined to end Australia's shameful housing and homelessness crisis. We know it can be fixed. There are clear policy proposals there. We need to make the right choices to make a difference for Australians who need a roof over their heads and need it now.

We are indeed in a housing affordability crisis. We've seen the ratio of house prices to incomes more than double over the past decade. Increasingly, homeownership is no longer a dream or an aspiration; it's something that's entirely out of reach for many ordinary Australians. This is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's homeownership that provides the best basis for security in retirement. Secondly, Australians who own their own homes tend to have the most financially secure environments, because homeownership is an important enabler for family formation and gives people the confidence and courage to have children, bring up a family and contribute to Australia in that way. Thirdly, it also leads to stronger communities because people who own a house in a neighbourhood are more likely to get involved in community groups and sporting clubs, to look out for their neighbours and to protect the asset.

For all these reasons—security in retirement, family formation and social stability—homeownership is not only an important aspirational goal for individual Australians but a collective goal for us as a nation. The fact that we are currently failing so many younger Australians by pushing this dream out of reach is really a breach of our social and intergenerational compact with the next generation of Australians. We are making their lives harder than previous generations have had it. It is also, at the margins, fuelling homelessness by pushing housing affordability out of reach for so many.

The unaffordability of housing is overwhelmingly a supply issue. We have not been building enough new homes in Australia to accommodate the increase in our population both from natural increase—births, family formation—and through immigration. Until we grapple with and address the supply-side elements of this crisis we are not going to be able to solve it or bring down housing prices.

Labor's big plan for housing affordability is to, firstly, build 1.2 million new homes by 2030. That's their housing target. That would require some 250,000 homes to be built each year. But, currently, only 170,000 new homes are being built each year. That compares to about 190,000 new homes that were built each year under the coalition. So the Labor government is currently 80,000 homes per year short of its target, which means it will fall about 400,000 homes short of its 1.2 million target.

This isn't just a political point. The incoming government brief prepared by Treasury and released at least partially under FOI makes quite clear in its advice to government that this housing target is not going to be met. Treasurer Jim Chalmers says he is relaxed about that advice. Well, I don't think it's a cause for relaxation. I think it's a cause for a high degree of concern.

The Labor government's signature policy to deal with this crisis is the Housing Australia Future Fund. That's a $10 billion fund, but to date its efforts to address the housing crisis to improve housing supply have fallen well short of the mark. Details released in Senate estimates and in response to questions and FOIs revealed that, out of that fund, only 17 new houses in Canberra have been built and some 340 homes have been acquired and converted. So, for a $10 billion fund, the government's signature policy to address the housing crisis, we have had 17 new homes built and 340 acquired from the existing market, the existing stock, not adding at all to our housing supply. That is a woeful failure, and I do hope that the Housing Australia Future Fund can improve its performance. What this bill is designed to do is to make sure that, at the very least, the Housing Australia Future Fund does not contribute to some of the problems and causes that have got us into this crisis.

There is clear evidence that the militant action, rampant corruption and criminality of the CFMEU, the main construction union, has inflated construction costs across the sector by about 30 per cent on major projects, which has fed right through the sector. You hear from anyone who is involved in the construction of housing how much costs have gone up and how much the involvement of the CFMEU has pushed up costs on key worksites. Just today, in fact, on the front page of the Australian Financial Review, there is another story about CFMEU corruption and criminality and its administrator Mark Irving demanding that the government shift their focus to crime and corruption across the industry. This is the administrator that was appointed reluctantly by the Labor government to take over the CFMEU when public allegations of corruption and criminality became too big to withstand. He is saying that the government needs to shift its focus to crime and corruption across the industry.

Remember that one of the very first acts of this government when it was elected three years ago was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That was to abolish the independent cop on the beat that, as it was meant to, was doing a good job of clamping down on and targeting unlawful, corrupt and criminal behaviour by the CFMEU. The result of the abolition of the ABCC and a government that has provided tacit support to the CFMEU and has accepted sizeable political donations from the CFMEU has been that corruption, criminality and intimidation are being allowed to flourish in the construction sector. We are all paying for it, whether as taxpayers in contributing to state government infrastructure projects or as consumers of housing, as we all are, by the fact that construction costs have gone up right across the sector.

This bill would prohibit the Housing Australia Future Fund from investing into housing assets or entities that are financed by Cbus Super, and that's to ensure that taxpayer funds are left out of the criminal hands of the CFMEU. This is because Cbus Super and the CFMEU are effectively joined at the hip. They are two sides of the same coin. The CFMEU currently has three members sitting on the Cbus board. In the 2022-23 financial year, Cbus paid the CFMEU $1.25 million, including $233,000 paid to the CFMEU's Victorian branch—this is the most discredited branch of the CFMEU—for a sponsorship agreement. What we should be seeing from a government serious about the housing crisis, bringing down construction costs and improving housing supply is the Labor government pushing Cbus to cut ties with the CFMEU. This would mean kicking the three CFMEU directors off the board and stopping the endless flow of workers' money—because it is their money within Cbus—to the CFMEU. Given, though, that those close links continue and Labor has not taken those actions, allowing Cbus to participate in the Housing Australia Future Fund risks the integrity of that fund, and it risks rewarding the CFMEU for its criminality, its corruption and its contribution to inflating construction costs across our sector.

To date, Cbus is the only super fund to have publicly committed to funding the Housing Australia Future Fund. In fact, it was in November 2022, before the scheme was even legislated, that Wayne Swan, the Cbus chair, committed $500 million of Cbus members' money to the Housing Australia Future Fund. This commitment was made despite Cbus officials having voiced concerns to the Treasurer's office, later revealed under Freedom of Information requests, that the design of the scheme would mean no investor would provide capital upfront. It has always been clear, right from the very beginning, that Cbus has a vested interest in the Housing Australia Future Fund. As I said earlier, numerous sources, including the Real Estate Institute of Queensland have highlighted that the conditions of the CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreements are leading to a 30 per cent increase in construction costs across the sector, and the consequence is that the construction costs of homes that we need to fix the supply of housing are higher and that means construction happens more slowly.

Despite purporting and promising to take a hard line against criminality in the CFMEU, Labor has refused to consider deregistering the union. Labor has also refused to consider restarting or recommencing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In fact, Labor and Cbus have refused to recognise any probity, integrity or ethical issue whatsoever with CFMEU representatives continuing to sit on the board of a $94 billion fund of workers' money. Cbus has refused to cut its ties with the CFMEU. Until such time as Cbus cuts its ties with the CFMEU—no longer channels it money and no longer allows CFMEU members to sit on its board—it's an inappropriate party through which to undertake government business, and it's an inappropriate entity for the Housing Australia Future Fund to be funding. That's why, if Labor is indeed serious about stamping out corruption in the construction sector and addressing the very grave allegations of criminality and corruption by the CFMEU, it should support this bill. Labor should agree with us that Cbus should not be receiving any funding through the Housing Australia Future Fund to ensure, at least, that further money does not fall into the corrupt and criminal hands of the CFMEU.

Until Labor takes these steps to deal with the serious issues in the construction sector, to put the CFMEU into administration, to compel to Cbus Super to remove CFMEU members from its board and to stop the continued funding of the CFMEU by Cbus then we cannot take its commitment to housing seriously. It is hard to, to begin with, because the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund, is well behind schedule. They are not disbursing the money that has been allocated to them. The latest update we had was that only 17 new homes had been built, for a $10 billion fund. The government is refusing to address the Treasury's publicly stated concerns that the housing targets will not be met.

The government does not have a plan to increase the housing supply in Australia. And if the government does not have a plan to increase the housing supply in Australia and is not prepared to grapple with some of the causes of the housing crisis in Australia, including the rampant and criminal activities of the CFMEU, then it's not fair dinkum about addressing the housing crisis. Just having a fund, saying you've got a $10 billion fund, having a piece of legislation and putting out press releases is not going to fix the housing crisis. Building 17 new homes in Canberra is not going to fix the housing crisis. Acquiring 340 existing homes and rebadging them, saying that these are now Housing Australia Future Fund homes, is not going to fix the housing affordability crisis.

So that is why I commend this bill to the Senate. I doubt very much that those opposite will support it, because they have been reluctant condemners of the CFMEU's activities. But, if they are fair dinkum about wanting to improve housing affordability, if they are fair dinkum about wanting to bring construction costs down and if they are fair dinkum about wanting to improve housing supply, then they will recognise that there are serious governance, integrity, probity and effectiveness issues in allowing the Housing Australia Future Fund to work with Cbus, because of its close links to the CFMEU. So I urge those opposite to put the interests of Australians first in this instance, to put first the interests of the great number of Australians who wish to own a home but cannot afford to own a home, rather than the interests of the CFMEU and Cbus Super.

Senator Sharma, I listened intently to your comments there. I really respected you in your previous life; you were a magnificent ambassador for Australia, but, by crikey, you've been dealt a dud on this one, mate. I still hold you in high respect, Senator Sharma, but I have to challenge some of your comments.

On saying that, the bill before us today, the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, is yet another classic example of the crisis facing those opposite. Every time the government comes forward with a proposal that facilitates the construction of more homes for Australians that desperately need somewhere to live, somewhere to sleep at night, those opposite can't help themselves. For the last three years, they couldn't help themselves, and here we are in the first week, and they still can't help themselves. Their first response is to resort to their deeply held ideology that is opposed to both social housing and industry super funds. And, boy oh boy, haven't we seen that in this chamber? We witnessed it every time one of them stood up, every single time any one of them was tapped on the shoulder to make a contribution and was told, 'Here are your speaking lines'—the ideological hate of social housing and the ideological hate towards unions.

I do want to say this: I am proudly a member of a super fund that is an industry fund. I have been a member of that industry fund—it used to be called TWUSUPER—since 1986. When I came into the Senate, in 2005, I was offered the government one, to which I kindly and respectfully said: 'No, thank you. I want to stay with my industry super fund.' Do you know why? It was because I knew all the directors of the super fund, because it was made up of half union and half industry, so there was this full trust in working together to implement the best outcomes for young transport workers when they would, finally, have the need for, and would seek, a decent and respectful retirement. So, Senator Sharma, I challenge you on some of the statements you make.

Another challenge—I know a couple of the directors of the CFMEU super fund, and I'll tell you now that I'd back in Dave Noonan any day before any one of that lot on that side, if he were looking after my super fund. I can tell you that.

Those opposite really are in a mess when it comes to superannuation and housing. On the one hand, they want young Australians to be able to empty out their retirement income account to cover the deposit on a house. But, on the other hand, they actively seek to prevent industry super funds from investing in badly needed social housing. I grew up in social housing, and I have a soft spot for social housing. Well—I hate to tell them, but someone has to—you just can't have it both ways. It hasn't even been three months since the last election, an election which I can proudly say endorsed the government's measures that will increase the amount of social and other housing available to Australians that can't find somewhere to live. It is almost like the election on 3 May didn't happen. I say to those opposite respectfully: have you seriously learned nothing? Australians want their housing challenges addressed, and they want action now. They didn't vote for those opposite to stand in the way of building more houses. Yet here we are, less than three months later, and it's the same tired old Liberal Party and the other half, the tail that wags the dog, the Nats, with their same old ideological objection to taking action.

Those opposite seriously have bad form. During the last parliament, they spent months opposing each and every measure the government introduced to tackle the housing crisis. Who can forget how they stood in the way of the Albanese government's Help to Buy program—remember that?—during the last parliament? Imagine how ideologically obsessed you have to be to stand in the way of helping 40,000 Australians into homeownership. It's hard to believe, isn't it? But, unfortunately, this is what we've had. They also stood on the way of Labor's build-to-rent laws—remember that one?—which were aimed at getting more than 80,000 rental properties into the construction pipeline. If that wasn't enough, they also fought to block the Albanese government's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. That $10 billion program supports the delivery of tens of thousands of affordable homes. Now imagine being determined to prevent those homes being built. I can't comprehend someone waking up in the morning and striving to achieve that outcome in their day. To me, that is one real sick puppy.

Which brings us to the bill before us today. Not being content with opposing the creation of the Housing Australia Future Fund, the opposition now want to control how the money is spent, or, more precisely, control which organisations are allowed to partner with the HAFF to deliver social housing to those Australians that desperately need it. The bill combines two of the Liberal Party's great ideological obsessions, as I said earlier: the hatred of social housing and the hysterical opposition to industry super funds. Unlike those opposite, Labor knows that safe and affordable housing is essential to the security and dignity of all Australians. We have a suite of policies and legislation that addresses the challenges in each and every aspect of the complex housing portfolio.

For a generation of Australians, homeownership feels too far away and being a renter feels too insecure. May I say it was the Howard government that started creating this mess 20 years ago. The Howard government, their hero. We've been feeling this for a generation, not just the last couple of months. It is such a disappointment, not just for those of us on this side but also for the hardworking Australians chasing the dream of homeownership, that after three years it's still, 'No, no, no,' from those opposite. Senator Bragg and the opposition have gone straight back to form. It's disappointing that, after an election in which Australians resoundingly rejected the politics of delay and destruction, the kind of politics peddled by those opposite relentlessly, Senator Bragg is once again trying to stand in the way of real progress on housing. I should say, I suppose, old habits die hard.

If only the Housing Investment Probity Bill did what it says on the lid. Senator Bragg's bill does nothing for housing, it does nothing for investment and, oddly enough, it does nothing for probity either—I shouldn't be surprised. His one-page housing agenda—yes, one page—will do only one thing, and that is stand the way. This is just another cynical attempt by those opposite to play politics while doing nothing to help address our nation's housing crisis. While we're focused on building more homes and tackling the housing crisis, the opposition would rather waste time on a madcap anti-superannuation campaign that lets Senator Bragg hit all his favourite words on his housing bingo card—phrases like 'contingent liability', 'availability payments' and 'boondoggle'. 'Boondoggle' is a particular favourite. While Senator Bragg is showing us all of the nifty jargon he picked up working in the finance sector, flicking through his thesaurus, hoping he might hit on a new housing policy, do you know what we're doing on this side of the chamber? We're building homes. We're building homes everywhere from Blacktown to Bassendean, no matter what Senator Bragg makes up over there.

In Senator Bragg's own state of New South Wales, we, the Albanese government, are delivering more than 3,000 social and affordable homes thanks to the first round of the Housing Australia Future Fund he so despises. And, thanks to the latest round, we are delivering another 1,500 social and affordable homes in New South Wales. Here's the best bit, Senator Bragg, and you mob over there: we're going to keep doing it. We're going to keep delivering new homes through programs like the HAFF because we know that every Australian deserves a roof over their head. Every Australian deserves a safe place to call home. It's no wonder Senator Bragg and the rest of his ragtag team over there are so keen on trying to cut down our record on housing, given what they did—or didn't do—when they were in government.

Let's be clear: Labor is investing $43 billion in housing—not million, billion. You don't need to be an Ernst & Young accountant to know that that's eight times what the coalition invested in housing over almost a decade in office. Labor has helped more than 175,000 Australians into homeownership with five per cent deposits. The coalition helped 60,000. Us, 175,000; that mob, 60,000. That's almost—for those who can't count—three times as many in the same period. Labor is delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes, 28,000 of which are in construction and planning right now. The coalition, on the other hand, built only 370 under their policies—not 37,000, not 3,700, but 370. And it's no wonder they didn't deliver more new housing, because for most of the decade they were in government, they didn't even have a housing minister. So instead of introducing a bill today that will actually deliver more homes, or a bill that has some resemblance to a housing policy, Senator Bragg is seeking to pull apart Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund and have a crack at superannuation funds for daring to invest in social and affordable housing that Australians desperately need.

I know that this is an ideological obsession of those opposite, sadly. I know it's terrifying to them that Australian workers might be able to build themselves up for retirement thanks to Aussie superannuation funds. What's even more terrifying to them is that working people might have a voice in how their superannuation funds are invested and managed. But we've made it very clear all along: superannuation funds are required to comply with strict governance standards. They are made to act in the best financial interests of members. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority engages with superannuation funds on their governance arrangements and ensures that their boards meet the necessary and appropriate standards.

But the model that Senator Bragg is trying to target here—the equal representation model that superannuation boards have equal numbers of employer representatives and member representatives—is not new; I just talked about it. This is a longstanding feature of the superannuation system, and it means that the perspectives of both employers and working people are represented—shock, horror! As I'm sure Senator Bragg is aware, all superannuation fund trustee boards have to assure themselves that their directors meet the necessary standards required of them, including the fitness and propriety test.

Now, APRA has already imposed additional licence conditions on the trustees for Cbus, requiring them to engage an independent expert to assess whether governance requirements are being met. This is the proper work of the independent prudential regulator. This is APRA's role; it's not Senator Bragg's role, as much as he might wish it was.

Those opposite are trying to paint a very mangled picture with this bill. It relies on a conspiracy theory entirely of Senator Bragg's making. But, disappointingly for the senator opposite, the funding of social and affordable housing under the Housing Australia Future Fund is not a political process. The Housing Australia Future Fund is managed not by the government of the day but by Housing Australia. Housing Australia is an independent statutory authority with an independent and expert board. Funding decisions are taken independently by the Housing Australia board, consistent with their legislated investment mandate. So, while Senator Bragg is off on his campaign against superannuation and off on his campaign against social and affordable housing, we, the Albanese government, are getting on with the job.

Thank you very much, Senator Sterle. The time for the debate has expired.

I rise today to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The opposition will support this bill because the bill seeks to implement a suite of measures designed to protect the integrity of Medicare, strengthen the regulation of goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act and introduce minor but necessary amendments to the tobacco act.

These changes form part of the government's response to the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip. Dr Philip's review revealed serious issues in the administration of our health benefits scheme, particularly in the ability to detect, investigate and respond to fraud, misconduct and noncompliance within Medicare and associated schemes. The bill takes some practical steps to improve that situation. It seeks to provide the department with the tools necessary to carry out timely, efficient and effective compliance activities—measures that are essential to maintaining the public's trust and confidence in the Medicare system and ensuring taxpayers' funds are spent and used appropriately and wisely. I also note that the Senate inquiry into this bill, which reported during the recent caretaker period, has recommended the passage of this bill.

For these reasons, the coalition will be supporting those recommendations, because we've long championed the need for strong and fair compliance within Medicare and other critical programs like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the child dental benefits scheme. We believe that preserving the integrity of these systems is fundamental in delivering a sustainable and equitable healthcare system for all Australians.

However, while we support this bill and the improvements it seeks to deliver, we must also confront the broader and deeply concerning reality of Medicare under the Albanese Labor government. Labor promised at the last election in 2022 that they would strengthen Medicare, but since they've come to power we have seen the complete opposite. Bulk-billing rates have collapsed. When we left government and Labor was elected in 2022, over 88 per cent of appointments were bulk-billed. In just three years, that number had dropped by 11 per cent, to 77 per cent, under the first term of the Albanese Labor government. An 11 per cent decline is quite a staggering thing, and it meant that we saw 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits in the last year alone.

Worse still, Australians are now paying 45 per cent more in out-of-pocket costs than they were just a few years ago. Last year, 1.5 million Australians said they did not see their doctor because they could not afford to do so. That is 1.5 million Australians who potentially will become sicker because they have not had the early intervention that they needed—and guess where they end up? They end up in the emergency departments of our hospitals, which are already overburdened, with ramping at some of the worst levels ever seen on record and continuing to get worse in just about every state or territory in the country.

These aren't just abstract figures being put out here by the opposition; these facts and figures are contained in reports of the government itself. More importantly, these facts, figures and statistics relate to real people, real Australians, who are having to make the difficult decision between putting food on the table and going to see their doctor. As I said, these figures come from the government's very own national accounts. This is a crisis in our primary care system that has occurred under the watch of the Albanese Labor government in the last three years.

But what do we see the Prime Minister do when he turns up at the election in 2025? We see him waving his Medicare card around and using it as a political prop—a disingenuous stunt to try to distract Australians from his track record whilst in government for the last three years. This is absolutely not leadership. It is dishonesty and spin to try to con Australians into believing the situation is not as dire as it really is, and it has become completely and utterly catastrophic under the reign of this Labor government. It's a betrayal of the promise that Labor made to Australians—and keeps on making despite the facts telling a completely different story.

The coalition, on the other hand, is absolutely committed—totally and utterly committed—to making sure that Australians get affordable and timely access to health care. That should be, fundamentally, the thing that underpins our healthcare system in Australia, and that principle is what guided us the whole time we were in government. It guided us when we were continuing to list new medicines on the PBS—2,900 new or amended listings while we were in government. The last time the Labor Party were in government, between 2007 and 2013, they stopped listing medicines because they ran out of money. In the last term of the last Labor government, they decided to put a cap on the number of medicines listed under the PBS—a sneaky way to stop listing medicines on the PBS.

The coalition is absolutely committed to Australians getting access to timely and affordable quality health care. It guided us in government, and it will continue to guide us in opposition. We support the passage of this bill because it is taking important steps towards maintaining the strength, compliance and integrity of our Medicare system. It is so important that we maintain the strength and integrity of our public health systems, because that is what underpins the strong health system that we deserve in this country.

But let's be clear that this bill alone does not fix the mess that this government has created in Medicare. It does not address the affordability crisis that is making Australians pay ever more out-of-pocket costs every time they go to see the doctor. This bill does nothing to try to meet the promises made by this Prime Minister at successive elections about Australians being able to access affordable and timely health care, and it does not address the fact that he told Australians that the only card they would need when they went to the doctor was their Medicare card. Let's be clear: Australians know that that's not the case, because they feel it every time they go to see the doctor. They feel it in their hip pocket. They don't just hand over their Medicare card; they have to hand over their credit card as well. So, despite what the Prime Minister might say, the truth of what is actually happening out on the ground is something that Australians are feeling every day.

As I said, whilst this bill does very little to address the broader issues that are facing our healthcare system in this country as we stand here, we will support this bill because it does go some way to improving issues around the integrity and strength of our Medicare system. We will continue to scrutinise every piece of legislation that comes in here in relation to health. We will make sure we hold the government to account for the promises that it has made to the Australian public—promises that, sadly, we don't believe it will be able to deliver, even though we would love to see a situation where Australians are actually getting affordable and timely access to health care. We will hold them to account and we will continue to speak up for the millions and millions of Australians who have been let down by this government, who are paying the highest out-of-pocket costs that they have ever paid, who are having trouble getting access to even get in to see the GP, and who are ramped at the moment or are having to attend our emergency departments because they simply can't afford to see a GP. We will continue to fight on their behalf because we believe that they deserve affordable and timely access to health care.

This is not my first speech. I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I welcome the bipartisan approach taken by the coalition in restoring integrity and maintaining the sustainability of Medicare. As you know, Acting Deputy President O'Neill, Medicare is our most important safety net. It doesn't matter how many zeros you have in your bank account or what your postcode is—once you have a health scare, it tends to level the field.

All Australians, irrespective of their background, require a strong health system that can catch them in their moment of need, and I know that acutely. I have looked after thousands of patients in my near 30-year career, from all backgrounds—rich, poor and everything in between—and a public health system is the cornerstone of our health system. Yes, 55 per cent of Australians now have private health insurance, but the private health system tends to be a high throughput system, which tends to look after slightly lower acuity patients. If you have serious health problems, you will need the public system because that's where the complex medicine occurs.

I am also aware of reports—and I was distressed by them—in the media of a spate of allegations regarding Medicare fraud. It actually made me quite angry because I know, overwhelmingly, the workforce in this sector is there to do the right thing. They are individuals who have committed their lives to delivering high-quality care to the highest ethical standard, as the Australian people would expect. Our nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, social workers, physios, occupational therapists and support staff—who run hospitals and ferry patients from A to B, carting them around in their gowns—are the people who hold up the sky, as far as our health system goes. So, when we have a small group who are using Medicare as a piggy bank—an ATM, effectively—it casts a shadow over the whole system and raises question marks in the minds of Australians.

This legislation was born out of a review led by Dr Pradeep Philip. It was initiated by the health minister, who pulled an emergency handbrake and basically brought together a team of people to scrutinise, in a rapid-review-type fashion, what was going on. Hence a whole range of amendments have been brought into place to essentially grant the Commonwealth greater powers to investigate, to gather evidence and then, of course, to prosecute. So I would caution any bad actors out there that we are watching you. This legislation will now pass thanks to the bipartisan approach in this chamber.

Medicare was, I would argue, the centrepiece program that we took to the Australian people at the last election. There is the reason the Prime Minister was holding up his Medicare card every five minutes; Australians realise that Medicare is one of the most important social, health and, I would argue, economic programs that we have in this country. It is the ultimate safety net. Medicare is now 40 years old. It was introduced by the great Bob Hawke in 1984, when I first came to Australia. I remember Bob Hawke. He was a figure writ large in my memory. He is one of the reasons why I sit on this side of the chamber, but of course Medicare is the other reason.

Medicare, however, was in trouble when we came to government. Bulk-billing rates at the start of 2022 were described to be in freefall. That's not our language; that was the descriptor used by the president of the College of GPs, who is not known to use hyperbole or to exaggerate. In fact, at the start of 2022, the College of GPs issued a circular to their members to start increasing their out-of-pocket fees because general practice was on a precipice of viability. Hence we pulled an emergency handbrake the following year in our budget, putting in around $6 billion into the system in order to triple the bulk-billing incentive for the biggest users of Medicare, who are pensioners, concession card holders and, of course, children. This patient group is around 11 million Australians. They constitute 40 per cent of patients who use general practice, and they use around 60 per cent of GP visits, so it made sense to target this group.

We learnt a lot from that process. What we actually saw was an uplift in bulk-billing rates in a year's time. Bulk-billing rates, a year after that policy was instituted, actually lifted 2.1 per cent. It doesn't sound like much, but it translates to 103,000 additional bulk-billed visits per week. That happened pretty quickly because those general practices did their math and realised that if they bulk-billed these patients, they were going to get an incentive and make more money, and that would enhance their viability.

But the interesting thing was that the uplift was greatest in our regional communities, which is just the best news ever. For too long, we have had this health-wealth divide in our country based on postcode, where the regions have always suffered on just about every metric, whether it be health or economic—the two are tied. To see an uplift of nearly six per cent in Tasmania—I have worked in the Burnie hospital and I have worked in regional Tasmania—is fantastic. To see an uplift of four per cent in regional Queensland—I have worked in Rockhampton and Gladstone—was also great. To see an eight per cent increase in Bendigo, regional Victoria, was astonishing. And that was just with one year, so we will be watching closely to see what happens to bulk-bill rates.

Having achieved some success—I don't want to overstate it; these are green shoots of recovery in Medicare, and it's about arresting and then reversing that decline, that freefall, in Medicare bulk-billing—we have now gone further. We have decided to take this thinking, the idea of an incentive to encourage GPs to bulk bill more, and slap more incentives on top incentives to the tune of $8½ billion. That's a lot of money. That's a big down payment into Medicare. That is going to flush through the system on 1 November when that triggers. That is in response to the $8.3 billion that was ripped out of Medicare a decade ago by the then coalition when they froze Medicare rebates for at least six years.

We didn't just cook up this idea. We sought advice; in fact, this idea came from the AMA. The AMA have, for a long time, been advocating for a substantial injection into Medicare. We designed it in this way in order to get the outcome we want, which is to lift bulk-billing rates and to give Australians what they want, which is the ability to see a bulk-billing doctor again. That's what they want. We weren't ever going to just tip more money into the rebates. I'm not convinced that supporting ever-increasing rebates will actually deliver the outcome we want. Rebates can keep rising, but so can out-of-pocket expenses; there is no ceiling on the two. They tend to correlate; they tend to travel together in parallel. What we're trying to do is forcibly bring down the out-of-pocket expenses and lift rebates at the same time. That's what this policy is designed to do.

Our modelling suggests that, in five years time, in 2030, nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed. I'm aware that there was recently a report suggesting that a quarter of GP practices will not be adopting this. Well, I say to those GP practices that competition is a consumer's best friend. When you are surrounded by three in four general practices that will likely adopt this, you risk oblivion, basically. Your patients will vote with their feet. They will vote with their feet.

We will be looking forward to rolling this out. I think Australians absolutely understood what this meant for them at the last election. This is ultimately about frontloading this health system—finally. As a person who spent way too much time in big hospitals, all I did was catch disasters and emergencies at the bottom of the cliff. That was my day from morning till evening, on call, seven days a week. This was my life. We need to frontload our primary health system in order to prevent patients from becoming sicker and sicker and then ending up in hospital.

There are other measures around strengthening Medicare that will also do that. One is cheaper medicines. It doesn't get talked about enough. Cheaper medicines are incredibly important for patients with chronic disease. One in two Australians has a chronic disease—that's 50 per cent of the population—everything from heart disease to hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia and a range of other rare diseases that affect a large proportion of our population. These require medications that they will be taking chronically for years—not weeks, years—and it costs money. So what did we do when we came to government? The general script was around $42. We slashed that to $31—the biggest cut in the PBS in about 20 years. We've gone further at this election by cutting that to $25, which will start on 1 January.

Now, that's good news for the three million Australian women who are aged between 45 and 64—like me, my vintage—who are struggling with perimenopause and menopausal symptoms. We are the sandwich generation of Australian women. We've been caught between raising children and dealing with aged parents. The last thing we need is another whammy—the triple whammy of dealing with the symptoms of menopause and perimenopause—when we're trying to balance so much else in our lives and maintain our physical health, which is not easy when you enter your 50s. What we have done with menopause has been an absolute game changer for women. By listing a whole range of medications, we have dropped the price of these from private scripts costing between $55 and $60 a month to now $31 and then, from January of next year, to $25. Drugs like Prometrium, EstroGel and EstroGel Pro are used by millions and millions of Australian women, but, for a long time, there has been a health-wealth gap where only women like me who have the means can afford these drugs. Now we will democratise these medications for millions and millions of Australian women. Go and have a conversation with your GP, please.

We're also ensuring that the endometriosis clinics—there are 22, and we're going to increase that to 33—will have the expertise in-house to provide information and look after women my age who are dealing with menopause. So not only will these clinics be able to manage endometriosis, which is an incurable chronic disease; they will also be able to provide advice on pelvic pain and menopause, effectively becoming hubs for women's health. For too long in our health system that's been the province of specialist hospitals in major cities, and that information has been siloed; it has not diffused out into the community. This will change that.

We've also instituted a new rebate for menopause, making it cheaper for women to actually go and see their GP and have a longer discussion on menopause treatments. We also realise that GPs do not have the necessary training, and hence we will be working with the relevant colleges to develop what are called living guidelines on how to deliver best practice care. These living guidelines are effectively a road map for medical practitioners. They are extremely important. They are evidence based, and, because they are living, they will evolve as the evidence changes with time—as new medications, for example, come online. I'd like to give a shout out to Senator Marielle Smith and colleagues in this chamber for their work in the Senate on the menopause inquiry.

I'm speaking to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. As I understand it, this bill has been presented to the parliament following the independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance. This review, with its final report delivered in 2023, provided observations regarding fraud, non-compliance and vulnerabilities of the payment system. It called for the focus to remain on the structural issues and controls in the system to build trust in Medicare and materially reduce non-compliance and fraud. The review found significant changes are required to ensure usability and practitioner compliance. I would also like to begin my contribution with an acknowledgement that the overwhelming majority of practitioners are well-meaning and deeply respect our healthcare system and they continue to act to provide the best possible care for their patients.

This bill was referred to the community affairs committee for inquiry in the previous parliament. The nine submissions to the inquiry mostly included support for the changes within this bill, but there were some concerns and suggestions raised that I would like to raise in my time today. A young person made a submission to the inquiry, and, in her submission, she noted the importance of addressing fraud but emphasised:

…it is important to ensure that these powers do not create additional barriers for legitimate providers, which could inadvertently reduce the availability of services.

Further she added:

Simplifying processes is beneficial, however, it must not compromise the quality and safety standards that protect public health.

The Australian Greens agree with this sentiment and call on the government to ensure that Medicare continues to be grounded in the experiences and the processes required to ensure health care for consumers.

Another topic raised at the inquiry was the need to properly educate practitioners about the changes made by this bill. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners said in their submission:

Compliance processes can be stressful for providers and affect the quality and timeliness of patient care. We maintain educational activities should be prioritised before compliance actions. Where reasonable, health professionals must be given an opportunity to adapt or rectify their billing practices prior to being subject to compliance activities.

As presented in the Philip review, a significant part of leakage in the Medicare payment system is due to simple mistakes from practitioners rather than premeditated fraud. As such, it is crucially important that there be more focus placed on educating and enabling practitioners to comply with changes rather than relying on punitive enforcement.

I would like to note that the Australian Medical Association also made a submission to the inquiry. They wrote:

The proposed amendments aim to broaden and update investigative powers to ensure consistent and effective use across health benefits schemes and include additional offences under the Criminal Code such as money laundering, forgery, and identity fraud.

…   …   …

The AMA acknowledges the Bill intends to balance additional powers with appropriate safeguards, including restrictions on when warrants may be issued and guidelines regarding officer conduct.

In their submission, it is clear that the AMA is supportive of the need for further evaluation to ensure the balance between sufficient investigatory powers and safeguards, and to ensure appropriate protections for individual providers. Other individuals who submitted to the inquiry also believed that more needs to be done to ensure the underlying problems within that system are addressed.

With these perspectives noted, the Australian Greens will be supporting this bill. It is our expectation that the government will continue to work with representative organisations and individual providers to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place. More needs to be done, for example, to ensure that practitioners receive education regarding the expectations on them and the consequences if they fail to meet those expectations. Above all, the quality of health care for consumers must remain at the forefront and centre of all Medicare changes.

Today I am also really proud to be moving a second reading amendment to this bill on behalf of the Australian Greens. In this country we have a quiet crisis, where so many people cannot afford to access dental care. Now, many in this place and in the community know that the Greens are calling for the mouth to be considered as part of the body, with regard to getting dental care into Medicare. The Greens took a policy to the last election to put dental care into Medicare so that everyone with a Medicare card can access the dental care they need without breaking the bank. The reality is that too many people cannot access a dentist, because going to a dentist is far too expensive and most people are not eligible for public dentistry. For those that cannot access public dental services, the wait time can be years—years of living with preventable tooth decay, headaches and, in many cases, not being able to eat the food which they once enjoyed.

My amendment today calls on the government to fully fund and implement a seniors dental benefits scheme. The establishment of a seniors dental benefits scheme would go some of the way to supporting our community to get access to affordable dental care. The idea of a seniors dental benefits scheme is not new. The community and the sector have been calling for this for years. Notably, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, back in 2021, recommended this very scheme, and the Senate Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia recommended this in 2023. Years on, we still have had no action. Years of people living with preventable dental pain, yet this government continues to leave older Australians out in the cold when it comes to their oral health.

There are many, many stories of the consequences of successive governments failing to establish a seniors dental benefits scheme. I would like to share with you the story of Don Batty, who was featured by the ABC in an article published recently. Mr Batty is 80 years old. He is receiving the pension and he is experiencing severe dental issues. The way he describes it, in his words:

My teeth have started to disintegrate … I'm very embarrassed by my teeth and I try not to smile because I frighten people.

Don has been living with this for two years because he can't afford to see a private dentist and the public system is swamped. Don's story is one that I'm sure will resonate with senior Australians all over the country who are struggling to afford dental treatment—treatment they desperately need. The consequences? People are losing their social connection; it's impacting their mental health and, in many instances, people are struggling to eat the foods they once enjoyed. Mr Batty's experience is adding to the chorus for change. It's stories like his that are why the Australian Greens are calling on the government to establish a seniors dental benefit scheme as a step towards bringing dental care into Medicare for everyone.

Older Australians shouldn't be spending their retirement dealing with dental pain or missing teeth or the negative health effects that accompany untreated dental problems, and yet here we are. On average, Australians over 65 have lost 14 teeth. Twenty-five per cent avoid certain foods due to dental issues. The reality is that across Australia people are experiencing the cost-of-living crisis and 55 per cent of Australians over 65 delayed dental treatment in the last year, with affordability being the main barrier.

The Australian Dental Association supports the establishment of a seniors dental benefits scheme. The ADA, in collaboration with Primary Dental at Maroubra Medical and Dental Centre in Sydney and the University of Sydney, conducted a pilot program of a seniors dental benefits scheme, which included individualised dental plans as part of a GP provided healthcare program. The results of the pilot showed an improvement—an improvement!—in health outcomes, particularly in the management of tooth decay and gum disease. A participant in the pilot said:

Public dental waiting lists are too long, and I haven't seen a dentist for 5 years due to cost, and it was painful to eat and drink. Since I was on the pilot project, I have my new denture and I can eat a lot more food and drink than before.

The data is in. The pilot clearly demonstrated the value in providing affordable dental care to older Australians. We should make sure that people in their retirement, on the pension, struggling, can live free of dental pain. We should make sure that they can eat the food and drink the drinks that they once enjoyed, that they can smile without fear and that they can smile again with pride.

The next step must be for the government to commit to implementing the seniors dental benefits scheme. I call on everyone in this place to support our Greens amendment, to support, in principle, the establishment of a seniors dental benefits scheme. And while this amendment today will not establish a seniors dental benefits scheme, it sends a clear message to the Australian community, especially our older Australians, that we are going to get this done in this term of government. Otherwise, it is clear that the only party here who are committed to considering the mouth as part of the body and getting dental into Medicare is the Greens, and I foreshadow the Greens second reading amendment as listed on sheet No. 3360. Let us work together to bring dental care into medical care. Let us begin by helping our seniors who are living in dental pain, who are losing their social connection, their mobility and their health due to this unacceptable gap in our health system. It will take work together, it will take time and consultation and collaboration, but let us now begin. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended the establishment of a Senior Dental Benefits Scheme,

(ii) the Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia recommended that the Government consider the establishment of a Senior Dental Benefits Scheme,

(iii) Australians are experiencing a cost of living crisis, and 55% of Australians over 65 delayed dental treatment in the last year with affordability being the main barrier; and

(b) calls on the Government to fully fund and implement a Senior Dental Benefits Scheme".

I rise to make my contribution to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. As I commence, I note that this bill is in response to the Philip review, which identified a range of issues that need to be addressed to ensure the effective operation of the Medicare system.

As someone who has been in this place for a while now, I can very confidently assert the coalition's support for a strong Medicare system, one that serves the Australian people well, that seeks to provide efficient service and good access to health services for the Australian people, and, in that context, that stands by the coalition's record of ensuring that Medicare continues to do that. This is despite what you might hear from some of those opposite, particularly when it comes to election times, when the Prime Minister decided to spend his time wandering around the country waving a Medicare card and suggesting that the coalition might be doing something negative in the context of Medicare. If you look at the actual performance of the Labor Party compared to the coalition with respect to Medicare, it's actually the other way around. If you go to the provision of primary care services, for example, you see that, since this government came to government in 2022, the bulk-billing rate has plummeted from 88 per cent to 77 per cent—an 11 per cent reduction. Yet the Prime Minister has the gall to go around the country suggesting that Medicare will be stronger under Labor.

We welcome the arrangements that are being put in place through this piece of legislation. It is obviously backed by the Philip Review and also by a Senate inquiry that reported during the caretaker period, and so we will be supporting the legislation. What we are not going to tolerate is a continuation of the fabrications that are being put out by Labor about our performance in government with respect to Medicare. If you look at the facts, as opposed to the rhetoric and the BS that's put out there by the Prime Minister, the fact that funding for Medicare increased from $18.6 billion under Labor in 2012 or 2013 to more than $30 billion in 2021-22 under the coalition demonstrates that there has been an increase in funding for Medicare. Medicare bulk-billing funding was higher under the coalition. We're funding more services. Bulk-billing continuously rose under our entire term of government. The Labor Party cannot say that about what has happened during their time in government—it rose to 86 per cent before the pandemic and it was a record high of 88 per cent when we left government. It's now 77 per cent. In the coalition's last year in government, 167.2 million free GP services were delivered—an increase of 61 million from when we came to government. We have a very strong record with respect to support of the Australian people.

Let's not forget that, if you look at the PBS—and I think this is a very important area to consider—during the chaotic Rudd-Gillard years, the then Labor government stopped putting medicines on the PBS because they couldn't manage the finances of the country. They stopped listing new medicines because they couldn't afford to do so. Yet, when we came to government, we made 2,900 amended or new listings on the PBS. Having worked very closely with then minister Hunt, I know how focused he was on making sure that Australians had access to the best and the latest medicines and that we didn't fall into the trap that Labor fell into when they were last in government of not being able to afford to list medicines because they'd run out of money. They cannot manage the budget. Now we're starting to see those things happen again. Treasury is telling us that the budget is under stress. Where are the negative decisions going to come from under this government when they start running out of money? We know that Labor can't manage the budget. Historically, that's been one of their traits.

Of course, one of the scourges that we're seeing here in Australia, particularly post the pandemic and in the period immediately post the pandemic, is the issue relating to mental health, particularly for young Australians. What did the Labor Party do? They cut the number of services available to Australians to deal with mental health issues in half. They reduced it from 20 to 10, and, despite every recommendation that they've received since, they refuse to do anything about it. Yet they had the gall to go to the last election suggesting that people would be worse off under a coalition government, who were promising to increase it back to 20. They were not meeting that commitment. So, when we hear the crocodile tears from Labor or the entreaties about how wonderful they are at looking after Australians, remember that 75 per cent of people who are seeking mental health support are people under the age of 25, yet it was this Labor government that cut the number of mental health services available to young Australians—to Australians generally—from 20 to 10. They refuse to return it to where it was, despite all of the professional recommendations that they've had. Then they have the gall to run their fourth straight 'Mediscare' campaign, which leads me to a point that I made in this place yesterday.

You cannot believe what the Labor Party are telling you. We all remember the promise of a $275 reduction in power prices. We all remember that. We know that it will never be delivered. We know that they promised a lower cost of living and they promised higher real wages. We know that real wages have gone backwards in excess of six per cent since this government came to office. They promised us cheaper housing. How's that going? It's not. Housing is getting more expensive, and the things that the government are doing are making it more expensive. Their refusal to bring organisations like the CFMEU properly to heel are exacerbating cost issues in the housing industry. Then they have the gall to go to the election for the fourth time in a row running a 'Mediscare' campaign.

The Australian people cannot believe what the Prime Minister is telling them. It has been proven so many times now that he will say one thing, particularly in the lead-up to an election and then that will disappear. It'll disappear into the ether once the election has gone. We will not tolerate the myths that Labor continues to put in front of the Australian people. He did it again at the last election when he stood up in front of the Australian people—and I don't know how many times he did it—suggesting that the only thing you would need when you went to the GP was your Medicare card. Now, we know that that's not true and we know that will never be true. That promise will go to exactly the same place that the promise for a $275 reduction in energy bills went. It will never be delivered. We cannot believe what the Prime Minister says in respect of that.

Not even members of the Labor Party believe what the Prime Minister said. The Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Dean Winter, just last Saturday night, said in his speech after the election in Tasmania, 'Too many Australians can't get in to see a doctor, and they can't afford it if they can.' So even Dean Winter, the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania—I'm not sure how long he'll hold that position, mind you—doesn't believe Prime Minister Albanese when he says, 'The only thing that you'll need to go to the doctor is a Medicare card'—if you can get in to see a doctor, that is. The promise made by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign was simply a hollow one, like so many other promises that the Labor Party have made. The reality is that, at a time when they can least afford it—Dean Winter has confirmed it—Australians are forking out more than they ever have from their own pocket so that they can get access to Medicare services, despite the promises of the Prime Minister.

The really insulting thing in relation to that promise is that his own department's data indicated that it wasn't true. His department has said that a quarter of Australians won't be able to just walk into a doctor's surgery and use their Medicare card. Yet these are the false promises that the Labor Party continue to make to Australians—the deceptive promises. There's the $275 reduction in your power bills, a promise that will never come to pass. In fact, when we get to the end of this year, when the power bill subsidies run out, the cost-of-living relief will be gone and the higher power bills will remain. They will be over $1,000 more than when this government came to office. They've got your vote. They only extended the income relief for six months to get them past the election. Now, you're on your own. You're stuck with your higher energy bill now. This government has got the vote; they're happy. They can tell us to get out of the way. They can run their hubris lines across the chamber and say we should just get out of the way and let them govern. You're hearing it in their speeches already. That's the arrogance of this government who can't keep their promises.

We are going to hold the government to their promises, and we're going to remind the Australian people every day of the broken promises. The $275 promise will never go away, and the 23 per cent—the quarter of Australians—who can't just walk into a doctor's surgery and use their Medicare card will be reminded every day, as well, that they were promised by the Prime Minister last May that all you would need to go to the GP was your Medicare card, not your credit card. It was a false promise; it was a scam. It was a scam run by the Labor Party.

We will remind the Australian people every day between now and the next election of the $275 scam, the cheaper-housing scam and the Medicare GP scam because they need to understand that that's what this government continue to do. Then they roll out their hubris and suggest that we just get out of the way and let them get on with it without raising any objections. Well, we won't.

Today I rise to make a contribution to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I start by congratulating the former minister who introduced this piece of legislation in the other house, Ms Kearney, for her work in ensuring that Medicare is maintained, strengthened and protected. I also want to extend that congratulations to Minister Butler, our minister for health and aged care, and to our other new cabinet ministers, including Assistant Minister White, who joins in Indigenous health—an important portfolio to me as a First Nations person—Minister Rae, who joins in aged care; and Minister McAllister, who is joining in relation to disability.

I'm really grateful to have the opportunity to be a member of the community affairs Senate committees. I will be joined by my colleague Senator Ananda-Rajah, who spoke before others in this chamber and brings an immense amount of her personal knowledge and professional knowledge to this work. Our work as a government is in ensuring that health, ageing and disability are at the forefront of what Australians see as centrepieces. This is important work. As a proud Western Australian senator—just like yourself, President—I want to ensure that our home state's issues are also presented and showcased for the good practice in our work that we are doing with our state Labor government and for the great contributions and investments by federal Labor that are working, particularly in Medicare.

We are unapologetic across this side of the chamber. We will not be lectured to by the opposition, because things like bulk-billing had been in freefall for a decade under them. The cuts to and the neglect of Medicare have been the things that this Labor government has had to fix in its first term. Australians see Medicare; it sits at the heart of our community. Whether you live in regional areas or within the metropolitan areas, Medicare universally benefits all Australians, including our most vulnerable Australians. That's why strengthening Medicare was a key focus of this Labor government's election platform. The Albanese government continue to be committed to protecting and strengthening Medicare as part of improving that compliance framework and to ensuring the integrity of rebates that are made under that scheme.

This bill, as others in this chamber have already articulated, is in direct response to the consultation with stakeholders and to the Philip review. The review was commissioned by this government to respond to some of those concerns about the operations of the Medicare system. This includes things like winding back Medicare claim timeframes from two years to one year and making sure that we improve the payment integrity system. It's about honesty, it's about consistency, it's about transparency and it's about championing the needs of those who are doing it tough and making sure that we centre patients and the care that needs to be provided.

This bill improves the investigative powers across Medicare and ensures that the PBS pharmacy approval process is enshrined in legislation, to enhance the capacity of the government to manage and alleviate the consequences, particularly of the TGA shortages here in Australia. It also supports the very important vaping reforms that were introduced by this government in our last term in parliament. It centres on the importance of harmonising different advertising provisions and adding clarity to that with its interactions with the TGA. That is an important measure because we know that, as part of the reforms introduced by this government, the Cancer Council's recent research in its latest Generation Vape study talks about a decline in the 14- to 17-year-old Australians who vape. These are important measures, and we know that.

This further investment also includes other measures. If you were in here at question time yesterday, you would have heard Senator Tyrrell ask a question in relation to tobacco. The Albanese Labor government are making that further investment—$350 million—to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources to tackle the black market in relation to illegal tobacco. That is an important measure we are coupling alongside our important reforms on vaping.

The PBS has been in place in this country for 75 years. Cheaper, affordable and prompt access to medicines and health care can only be a win. No-one should have to choose between the basics of a good standard of living, fuel and food. Australian patients and families will save hundreds of dollars a year in out-of-pocket costs. It ensures that every Australian receives the best health care, which they deserve. It is our job in this place to ensure that that is maintained. We cannot have a system that is being exploited at the cost of our most vulnerable Australians. Compliance with and protection of Medicare is in fact non-negotiable. It is about calling out those who are in fact not doing the right thing. This is why it's so important that a few do not spoil it for all and that we have good compliance and cheap and accessible health care.

This is exactly why the Albanese Labor government are making cheaper medicines even cheaper, with a script not going to cost more than $25 under the PBS. This is critical for Australians who may have some additional challenges or are affected by cost of living due to their circumstances. This is why the Albanese government is investing in ways to alleviate these pressures. These are part of a range of measures that this government has introduced.

I want to take a moment to reflect on my memories of my own experiences of the importance of Medicare. I was a child who grew up with hardworking parents in Western Australia—in Perth, in fact. My dad was a truck driver and my mum was a tea lady. I have a very vivid memory of when I was in primary school going to the local GP and the receptionist using one of those old credit card systems that you would swipe across to get a triplicate. In the eighties, when Medicare first came in, they were my experiences. They were my memories. I was a kid who presented with some health issues. I have a hereditary hearing impairment, so my parents were constantly taking me in for ear, nose and throat issues. The access to affordable medications and the Medicare system made a difference. It also shaped my worldview in relation to health care. If that hadn't been the case and Medicare didn't exist then I might not be standing here in front of you in the chamber today.

I also, like many parents across Australia, have taken my kids who have been unwell and distressed at night to an emergency department and sat for hours waiting for them to be seen. One of the most recent times was when my daughter fell off her scooter. She was in so much pain from an aching and throbbing wrist that she had landed on. We saw a medic on site at the event we were at, but, as a concerned mum and due to the need to ease my mind and also to settle her and reassure her that she hadn't broken anything, I took her off to an emergency department.

I see the benefit in the way previous Labor governments have invested in and built Medicare for our families and communities because, over my life cycle, I have used the healthcare system and benefited from it.

Senator Cox, we are at the hard marker. You will be in continuation.

At the request of Senator Sheldon, I present the third report of 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 3 OF 2025

24 July 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet Senator Leah Blyth Senator Ross Cadell

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 3 OF 2025

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 23 July 2025 at 7.51 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 August 2025 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

5. The committee considered the following bills and, noting that they had been referred to committees on 23 July 2025, makes no further recommendation:

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

24 July 2025

I move:

That the report be adopted.

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025".

The reason the Greens are moving this amendment is that we have already been contacted by multiple stakeholders who are deeply concerned about the expansion of Howard-era secret interrogation powers, on which the sun was meant to set in 2005, but which keep being renewed and renewed and renewed.

The expansion of these Howard-era secret interrogation powers that have been given to ASIO is now being proposed by the Albanese Labor government to cover a raft of broadly defined additional activities. The proposal that's come from the dark, smoke-filled clubroom of Labor and the coalition on national security and ASIO's powers—its secret detention powers—is that this bill should be reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which normally sits in secret and has never seen a security power that it hasn't wanted to grab with both hands and double-down on. It's the secret committee for secret powers, which it loves to whack on steroids.

What have the government and the coalition decided to do with this proposed expansion of ASIO's powers? They've decided to send it off to a secret committee that's loved every single expansion of ASIO's powers and to then say to the public: 'Don't you worry about it. It will be fine. John Howard got it right and we just want to increase John Howard's laws. We want to double down on John Howard's secrecy provisions and the ability to secretly interrogate people about a whole raft of matters—literally pull people off the street, take them to a secret place to interrogate them in secret, and give them basically no rights.' The government and the coalition want to expand very significantly the existing raft of espionage and sabotage that forms the basis upon which they can do this, in very woolly terms that aren't properly defined.

Concerns about the promotion of communal violence can have you pulled off the street and interrogated in secret under this bill, as can concerns about Australia's territorial and border integrity. But what does 'border integrity' mean? Could a concern about border integrity that might be perceived by ASIO as a serious threat involve organising a protest at a detention centre? Would that be enough to get you pulled off the streets by ASIO, put into a secret facility and questioned in secret with basically no rights? Is that what's being proposed?

There are issues about the promotion of communal violence. Of course we're opposed to communal violence, but is ASIO to be the determiner of that if they don't like the fact that somebody is calling for the end of a genocide? Will the club come together to punish somebody who's calling for the end of a genocide—have them pulled off the streets and interrogated in secret? Well, the recent experience would suggest that the Labor-coalition club would be quite comfortable with actually punishing people for seeking to end a genocide.

So we say again to the Albanese government: why do you keep playing John Howard's games? Why do you keep dealing with the coalition and massively expanding secrecy provisions, massively expanding the security state and expanding the ability of organisations like ASIO to pull people off the street and interrogate them in secret? If you're going to play that game, why aren't you willing to do it in public? And why aren't you willing to expose these powers to a proper public inquiry before the legal and constitutional committee, rather than send it off to the secret club to secretly expand these secret powers yet again? That's why we've moved this amendment, and that's why we look to other members in this chamber to have the courage to say, 'These kinds of powers need close public scrutiny.'

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Shoebridge, to the Selection of Bills Committee report motion moved by Senator Grogan be agreed to.

Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the deaths of three former members of the House of Representatives: on 4 April 2025, Petro Georgiou AO, a former member for the division of Kooyong, Victoria, from 1994 to 2010; on 5 May 2025, the Hon. Dr Charles Race Thorson Mathews, a former member for the division of Casey, Victoria, from 1972 to 1975; and, on 24 May 2025, Ms Elizabeth Robyn Truman, a former member for the division of Hawker, South Australia, from 1987 to 1990.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 31 July 2025, the following deidentified customer data for participants in Workforce Australia services in the Sydney Greater West employment region from 1 to 31 March 2025:

(a) all instances of a participation suspension notice issued due to a mutual obligation failure triggered by non-attendance at a compulsory provider-managed appointment, including the timestamp for each notice and notices for both deferred suspensions and immediate suspensions; and

(b) for each participation suspension notice that meets the criteria in paragraph (a), the following data held in the Employment Services System records:

(i) the scheduled appointment time,

(ii) the timestamp for the entry that created the appointment,

(iii) timestamps for changes made to a scheduled appointment time,

(iv) the method of formal or primary notification,

(v) the timestamp for the formal or primary notification that was issued, and

(vi) the timestamp for the non-compliance event record that was entered.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025:

(a) any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to invest $10 billion to construct 100,000 new homes for first home buyers; and

(b) any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to enable first home buyers to purchase a home with a 5% deposit.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025, any documents that detail the aggregate expenditure made from the Housing Australia Future Fund from 1 April to 30 June 2025.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to have business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 and general business notices of motion Nos 1 to 5 and 18 considered during formal business today.

Leave not granted.

I remind senators that yesterday after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion of Senator Hanson-Young proposing an order for the production of documents relating to the North West Shelf Project extension. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the deferred vote, as moved last night by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Order! I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. I draw the Senate's attention to there being two nominations for a number of committees. In accordance with standing orders, a ballot will need to be held to determine which one of two senators nominated will be appointed to the committees. I understand that it is the wish of the Senate that the ballot be held later today.

by leave—I move:

That senators appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—

Senator Allman-Payne

Participating members: Senators Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, Lambie, McKim, Barbara Pocock, David Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Economics Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—

Senator McKim

Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, Lambie, Barbara Pocock, David Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—

Senator Faruqi

Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, Lambie, McKim, Barbara Pocock, David Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—

Senator Hanson-Young

Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hodgins-May, Lambie, McKim, Barbara Pocock, David Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, Lambie, McKim, David Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating members: Senator Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, Lambie, McKim, Barbara Pocock, David Pocock, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—

Senator Shoebridge

Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, Lambie, McKim, Barbara Pocock, David Pocock, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Procedure — Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senator Hanson-Young

Privileges — Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senator McKim

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, Lambie, McKim, Barbara Pocock, David Pocock, Shoebridge, Steele-John and Waters

Scrutiny of Bills — Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senator McKim

Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation — Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senator David Pocock

Senators' Interests — Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senator Hodgins-May

I do apologise—

You can speak to the motion. That's fine.

Can I seek clarification on exactly what this is doing. There has been a lot of—which committee is this? I do apologise.

I can provide you with the list, but it's not anything controversial. It's the ones as agreed. It's the normal agreed discharging and putting on. It's not the contested one.

Question agreed to.

I have received a letter nominating a senator to be a member of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, senators! Senators, you need to either be in a seat or not in the chamber.

by leave—I move:

That—

in accordance with the provisions of the Archives Act 1983, the Senate elect Senator Dean Smith to be a member of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council for a period of 3 years, on and from today.

I can't think of a better senator for this. With his very fastidious eye for detail, that's an excellent appointment.

Question agreed to.

Congratulations to Senator Dean Smith.

by leave—I move:

That senators appointed to committees as follows:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators Liddle, Stewart and Whiteaker

Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Blyth and Ciccone

Corporations and Financial Services — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Hume, O'Neill, Barbara Pocock, Sharma and Whiteaker

Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—

Senators Cadell, Colbeck, Grogan, Hodgins-May, McGrath and Mulholland

Participating members [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 election]: Ananda-Rajah, Antic, Askew, Blyth, Bragg, Brockman, Brown, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Collins, Cox, Darmanin, Dolega, Dowling, Duniam, Ghosh, Henderson, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McKenzie, McLachlan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, David Pocock, Polley, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma, Sheldon, Dean Smith, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Walker and Whiteaker

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators Babet, Cadell, Ciccone, Colbeck, Darmanin, McLachlan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, Shoebridge, Dean Smith, Stewart and Whiteaker

Human Rights — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Ananda-Rajah, Collins, Scarr, Shoebridge and Walker

Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—

Senators Dowling and Dean Smith

Participating members: Ananda-Rajah, Antic, Askew, Blyth, Bragg, Brockman, Brown, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Colbeck, Collins, Cox, Darmanin, Dolega, Duniam, Ghosh, Grogan, Henderson, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Mulholland, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, David Pocock, Polley, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Walker and Whiteaker

Law Enforcement — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Antic, Cox, Polley, Sharma and Shoebridge

Migration—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Senators Ananda-Rajah, Bragg, Dolega and Shoebridge

National Anti-Corruption Commission — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Henderson, McGrath, Polley, Stewart and Walker

National Capital and External Territories — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators McLachlan, O'Sullivan, David Pocock, Polley and Walker

National Disability Insurance Scheme — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators Brown, Chandler, Kovacic, Mulholland and Steele-John

Northern Australia — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators Allman-Payne, McDonald, Dean Smith, Sterle and Walker

Parliamentary Library — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators Askew, Blyth, Brown, Ghosh, Mulholland and Waters

Parliamentary Standards — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Chandler, Faruqi, Grogan, Henderson, O'Neill and Sheldon

Public Accounts and Audit — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Darmanin, Dowling, Ghosh, Hume, O'Sullivan and Barbara Pocock

Public Works — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators Colbeck, Dolega and Kovacic

Trade and Investment Growth — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senators Canavan, Colbeck, Cox, Marielle Smith and Whish-Wilson

Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Senators Brockman, Canavan, Dolega, Ghosh, Nampijinpa Price, Sterle and Whish-Wilson

Question agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Thorpe, Babet and Tyrrell, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 October 2025:

Sections 4 and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, with particular reference to:

(a) the appropriateness of amending those sections to either remove or place conditions on the ability of the Prime Minister to determine the number of personal employees allocated to parliamentarians, for the purpose of ensuring that all parliamentarians are adequately resourced to represent their electors; and

(b) any other related matters.

I move an amendment, as circulated, to the motion moved by Senator Payman and others:

Omit "27 October 2025", substitute "29 August 2025".

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Scarr to the motion moved by Senator Payman and others be agreed to.

Senator Roberts, I believe you have an amendment to Senator Payman's motion.

I withdraw my amendment.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Payman and others be agreed to.

I continue the reflection of my experience of Medicare. I was mid-story, talking about having my young daughter fall off her scooter and be whisked off to an emergency department. Preserving, protecting and strengthening our Medicare system has been important for mums like me and people like me who, through their life cycle, have had the joy of experiencing and having the support of Medicare. I feel so proud to continue to be part of a government that are delivering and ensuring that we protect Medicare.

Also, on the importance of urgent care clinics, the Albanese Labor government will continue to build on their investment from their first term in urgent care clinics. Urgent care clinics are obviously critical to our health system. I also have a personal experience taking my young nephew, who was clearly distressed after a bit of a face plant in a playground, into an urgent care clinic. He was seen within 20 minutes, had an ice pack and felt nice and reassured. They're the joys of being able to do that: making sure that our families remain central to the things that we do in health care; having cheaper medicines; making sure that the 75-year history of the PBS, the easing of cost-of-living pressures for all Australians and the billions of dollars that they will save in prescriptions continue under our government; and the strong action on vaping—I talked a little bit about that in my speech—and more funding for public hospitals.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering on an additional $1.8 billion for public hospitals and health services next year. That one-year agreement also means that Australians will benefit from having better funded public hospitals. This builds on a long-term health system reform that we in the government are committed to. The total Commonwealth contribution to state-run public hospitals will reach a record $33.91 billion in 2025-26, and you will see year-on growth in Commonwealth funding for state and territory public hospitals to 12 per cent. I know that those in opposition don't like to hear this, but they were responsible for cutting $50 billion out of public hospitals and out of that health budget. That's a really important, stark contrast to the investment that the Albanese Labor government will continue to work in collaboration and cooperation with states and territories to deliver on for our public health system in five-year agreements.

The work that the Albanese Labor government are continuing to commit to is so important. We believe that no-one should be left behind and that no-one should be getting below-par health care in this country. That is why we continue to invest in, strengthen and protect Medicare. It was built by a Labor government; it will continue to be protected by Labor governments, now and into the future. Over here in the government, we are unapologetic about that. The funding and the contributions that we are making to health care will absolutely improve the quality of life of all Australians. They will tackle and address the cost-of-living pressures and challenges being faced by Australians across our country. These are important measures. These single investments and the protection against fraud and other issues within the integrity of our payment systems are critical. We want to make sure that we are protecting Australians, and this bill absolutely does that.

The Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 implements a number of public health measures intended to protect the integrity of Medicare, enhance the regulation of goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act and make minor amendments to the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act. This bill forms part of the response to the recommendations of the independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip.

The Philip review identified a range of issues that affect the effective administration of health benefits schemes, in particular, the power to detect, respond to, investigate, disclose and deter misconduct, fraud and noncompliance. As such, the bill seeks to address a range of issues that are inhibiting the ability of the department to conduct efficient, timely and effective compliance activities. We in the opposition also note that the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reported back during the caretaker period on its inquiry into the provisions of the bill, advising that the bill should be passed. As such, the coalition supports the measures in this bill to strengthen the effective administration of Australia's important health benefits schemes.

We have a longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity of our health benefits schemes, such as Medicare and the PBS, and this bill is in line with that commitment. We have long championed the need for strong and fair compliance within Medicare and other critical programs like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. We believe that preserving the integrity of these systems is fundamental to delivering a sustainable and equitable healthcare system for all Australians.

However, while we support this bill and the improvements it delivers, we must also confront the broader and deeply concerning reality of Medicare under the Albanese Labor government. The government's own national accounts confirm the growing affordability crisis in our primary healthcare system. Yet what do we see from the Prime Minister? We see him waving his Medicare card around as a political prop, as a disingenuous stunt to distract from his failure to deliver affordable health care. This is not leadership; it's dishonesty, spin and a betrayal of the promises Labor made to Australians. The coalition believes every Australian deserves timely and affordable access to quality health care. That principle guided our approach in government, when we delivered record high bulk-billing rates, and it continues to guide us now in opposition.

We support the passage of this bill. It is an important step in strengthening compliance and improving integrity in our public health system. But let us be clear: this bill alone will not fix Medicare. It does not address the affordability crisis facing Australian families right now. The coalition will continue to scrutinise the government, and we will hold them to their promises on Medicare. We will continue to speak up for the millions of Australians who are currently paying the highest out-of-pocket costs on record when they get to the GP reception desk, because of this government's failures.

The coalition is incredibly concerned by the Albanese Labor government's disingenuous rhetoric about Medicare and by the current state of bulk-billing. Labor promised to strengthen Medicare, but it has only been weakened since they were elected. Medicare bulk-billing has fallen by 11 per cent under Labor. I'll repeat that: bulk-billing, under Labor, has fallen by 11 per cent. GP bulk-billing has fallen from 88 per cent to 77 per cent under the Albanese Labor government, and there have been 40 million fewer bulk-billed visits to the GP in the past year alone. Australians are now paying, from their own pocket, 45 per cent more of the cost to see a GP. Out-of-pocket costs have literally reached the highest on record. This data, from the government's own national accounts, shows that more Australians are having to use their credit card, along with their Medicare card, and they are being charged the highest amount of out-of-pocket costs on record. And yet it was the Labor Party who had the cheek, during the recent election campaign, to run another outrageous 'Mediscare' campaign when they are the ones who have been damaging the health system in Australia.

This is the sad reality of our healthcare system under Labor, and it forced more than 1.5 million Australians to avoid seeing their GP last year because they could not afford to see their doctor. This is the reality of the healthcare system in Australia under Labor. Instead of being honest with Australians about this concerning situation, Anthony Albanese continues to wave his Medicare card around as a stunt to try and distract Australians away from Labor's failures and his failures in the healthcare system. The Prime Minister is completely out of touch with the reality of the pressures that Australians are facing, including the rising unaffordability of health care over the past three years because of the actions of his Labor government. While the Prime Minister is focused on not telling the truth to Australians about Medicare, the coalition is focused on ensuring struggling families have timely and affordable access to a doctor.

During the recent election campaign, the Prime Minister continually failed to tell the truth about Medicare. The Prime Minister continually failed to tell the truth to Australians about the state of the healthcare system. He said, on numerous occasions, 'Under Labor, all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.' This is an untruth and is not the reality that Australians are facing, because of the actions of his government. The incoming-government brief from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, released under freedom of information, estimates that a quarter of GP clinics across Australia will not bulk-bill despite all of the promises of the Albanese Labor government. So one in four doctor surgeries across the country will not be bulk-billing, despite the Prime Minister promising, during the recent campaign, while waving that Medicare card around, to ensure that all Australians will have access to a bulk-billing doctor.

This data from the health department shows that millions of Australians will still need their credit card as well as their Medicare card when they go to see a doctor, and the worst part is that their credit card is currently being charged the highest out-of-pocket costs on record under Labor. So, at a time when they can least afford it, Australians are forking out more than they ever have before from their own pocket to access essential health care. It is damning. It is appalling that this government is willing to lie to Australians about their access to health care. It is a damning indictment of the Prime Minister that he is refusing to tell the truth to Australians, even after the election campaign. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister led a disgraceful campaign, accusing the coalition of wanting to do all sorts of things to the health system when, in fact, it is due to the Prime Minister's negligence and the Labor Party government's negligence that bulk-billing rates have decreased and that Australians are being hit in their purses, their wallets and their pockets. It's because of the Labor government's failure to adequately manage our healthcare system. Clearly the Prime Minister would have known about the health department's data before he waved his Medicare card around, telling all Australians that they could visit their doctor for free. The coalition will be watching the situation closely to ensure the Prime Minister keeps the promises he made to the Australian public. All Australians deserve timely and affordable healthcare access, but Australians also deserve to have a prime minister who will tell the truth and not a prime minister who continues to tell mistruths and to spread misinformation about the coalition and a prime minister who is not facing up to the reality of the negligence and mismanagement of the healthcare system in Australia that has happened under his watch. The Prime Minister made a lot of promises at the last election and, indeed, at the 2022 election, and the coalition will be watching the situation to ensure that those promises are kept.

The department of health's advice in its incoming brief that indicated that nearly one four GP clinics are not likely to take up Labor's Medicare bulk-billing incentive is something that should be concerning to all Australians. It should be of real concern to the Prime Minister and his health minister because this calls into question Labor's claim that, by 2030, nine out of 10 visits to the GP will be free. Clearly on the information that is before the Senate and that is before the Australian people at the moment that is another promise that will not be kept by this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister needs to be honest with the Australian people. Was this advice provided to the government prior to the election and, if so, why was it not disclosed to the Australian people before the election?

The coalition has a very, very strong record on Medicare and a very, very strong record on health care. Funding to Medicare increased every single year under the former coalition government, from $18.6 billion under Labor in 2012-2013 to more than $30 billion in 2021-22. Medicare bulk-billing was higher under the coalition. Bulk-billing rose consistently across our entire term of government. It rose to 86 per cent before the pandemic and was at a record 88 per cent when we left government. In the coalition's last year, 167 million free GP services were delivered. That is 61 million more than under the previous Labor government.

The coalition also has a very strong record when it comes to supporting a strong PBS in Australia. In government, we made 2,900 new or amended listings on the PBS to expand access to cheaper medicines. In stark contrast, Labor have a very poor record on the PBS. Last time they were in government, they had to stop listing new medicines on the PBS because they just simply couldn't afford it and because they could not manage the nation's finances. They repeated history last term when they capped the number of new medicines that could be considered for listing on the PPS, creating unacceptable delays for patients whose lives could depend on them.

The coalition is also very focused on mental health and suicide prevention, unlike Labor, who have cut Medicare funding for mental health support in half. When Labor ripped away Medicare mental health sessions from 372,000 vulnerable Australians, they went against the advice of their own review and all of Australia's peak mental health experts. It has only gone backwards since this cruel cut. Data from the Productivity Commission shows that access to Medicare mental health support has fallen to the lowest point in at least 10 years at a time when we know demand is skyrocketing. Under Labor, mental health has been completely neglected. They have cut the number of Medicare subsidised mental health sessions in half and they have abolished the National Mental Health Commission. The chair of Mental Health Australia even resigned out of frustration because of the Prime Minister's neglect of mental health and because of the Prime Minister's refusal to meet with him.

The coalition will always defend Medicare and will always fund Medicare, unlike the Labor Party. We have seen bulk-billing reduce because of their mismanagement.

Medicare is one of Labor's proudest achievements and one of Australia's proudest achievements. It's a reflection of our values: no matter where you live, what you earn or who you are, you should be able to access the health care you need. That access should depend on your Medicare card, not your credit card. But we also know that, for Medicare to keep doing what it was designed to do, we've got to protect it—not just from ideological attacks but from inefficiencies, noncompliance and fraud that quietly drain public money away from the patients who need it most. When billions of dollars of Medicare payments go missing, whether by mistake or misuse, that's money that doesn't go to a patient waiting for diagnosis. It's a consultation missed, care delayed.

Every Australian pays into this system through their taxes, through their Medicare levy, and they expect and deserve that those dollars go towards the services they count on. Medicare works only when there is trust in it, and that's what the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is about: continuing that trust and protecting Medicare. We're making sure not only that Medicare is at its strongest but also that it's sustainable for future generations. Medicare was established by the Hawke government over 50 years ago, and we intend to honour that legacy by making the single largest investment in Medicare ever, during this term of government. This is not a government that's content to let Medicare fall behind. We are making it stronger and we are making it fairer.

Last term, the government opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. We want to continue this momentum and we plan to establish another 50 clinics this term. This will mean that four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic. In my home state of WA, we've already opened eight clinics: Beeliar, Broome, Clarkson, Eaton, Gosnells, Midland, Morley and Rockingham. Soon, we will open another six clinics: Bateman, Ellenbrook, Geraldton, Mirrabooka, Mundaring and Yanchep.

My local Medicare urgent care clinic is in Beeliar, and I'm sure other parents know what a relief it is to have the option of free walk-in care for all the bumps, knocks and rashes that young children get. I've been there many times with my two-year-old. When I get that dreaded call from day care that he's got a fever or a runny nose, it's good to know that help is close by, quick and free. I want to give a shout-out to the team at the Beeliar urgent care clinic, who have helped me and my community many times. Their care is always exceptional.

This government knows that Medicare is more than just a program. It's a promise that your health will never depend on your bank balance. You can't deliver better care without the people who provide it, and that's why this government is investing in the largest GP-training program in Australia's history, with 2,000 new GP trainees every year by 2028. The government is also expanding the number of overseas trained doctors entering our system, with 17,000 new doctors registered in the last two years alone. We're backing our nurses too, with paid prac to support them while they're on placement.

We want a healthcare system where every patient can find a doctor and where every doctor is backed by a system that supports them to deliver the best care. We're acting now to protect the system's integrity, cracking down on rorting and misuse, because every dollar that goes to fraud is a dollar that can't go to patients. The Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance was undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip. It is known as the Philip review. It was commissioned by the government to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system. The Philip review found that between $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion is lost every year to incorrect, non-compliant or fraudulent claims. It also found that the current compliance scheme was limited in scope and outdated in its powers.

The government has already made priority amendments in response to this review, and this bill is the next step in responding to the Philip report. It will modernise investigative powers, streamline claims processes and ensure payments that are made in error can be reversed. It will strengthen compliance, improve data and ensure our public health dollars are used as intended—because we know that Medicare only works when it is used properly. We will always defend Medicare's founding purpose: universal, accessible health care for everyone.

When the Albanese government was first elected in 2022, it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall—the inevitable result of a decade of cuts and neglect. That's why strengthening Medicare wasn't just part of our platform; it's at the core of what this government is here to do. We've already delivered the two largest increases to Medicare rebates in 30 years. In two years, the government has done more to strengthen Medicare than our predecessors did in nine. Bulk-billing is rising again, delivering an additional six million free visits to the GP in just over 12 months. And we are investing $8.5 billion to deliver even more bulk-billed GP visits and expand bulk-billing incentives to all Australians, tripling the number of fully bulk-billed practices across our country so that more people can see the GP for free. By 2030, nine out of ten GP visits will be bulk-billed. It's the single biggest investment in Medicare ever. That's what real reform looks like.

This bill implements a measure announced in the 2024-25 budget. It reduces the timeframe for making bulk-billed claims, from two years to one year, to support the integrity and long-term sustainability of the system. This will improve payment integrity and reduce the number of incorrect and fraudulent claims—importantly, with minimal impact on patients and practitioners. It still leaves some discretion to accept claims after one year, to ensure patients are not disadvantaged. It is a sensible change.

Another important part of our healthcare system is medicines. That's why this government is also cutting the cost of medicines, because we know that affordable care doesn't stop at the doctor's office. Australians have already saved more than $1 billion on the cost of their prescriptions thanks to Labor. We made the biggest cut to the cost of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS, and now we're going even further, capping the cost of scripts at $25 from 1 January 2026. That is a more than 20 per cent reduction that will save Australians over $200 million every year. Cheaper medicines means better health, fewer missed doses and real cost-of-living relief.

It is our pharmacies that are integral to this. They are vital to local communities, especially in rural and regional Australia. This bill simplifies the rules that govern when and where new pharmacies can be approved to dispense PBS medicines. Right now, applications that don't meet strict location rules can take months to process, stuck in a two-stage discretionary process that's both frustrating and unnecessary. We are replacing that with a faster, single-stage process that delivers quicker decisions and better access. Making smart changes to reduce administrative burden just makes sense.

This bill also expands existing mechanisms in the Therapeutic Goods Act to help deal with shortages in medicines, biologicals and medical devices that are approved for supply in Australia. The secretary of the department will be able to approve the importation or supply to substitutable, unapproved products from overseas if they are satisfied that an approved medicine, biological or medical device may become unavailable in the foreseeable future. This is a change, because currently they can only do so if they are already unavailable, which, for obvious reasons, is too late. This is more sensible reform that ensures medicines are available for the people who need them.

The bill also supports compliance and enforcement as it relates to unlawful and dangerous products, including unapproved therapeutic goods and illegal vapes. This government is taking action to protect the next generation. Our world-leading vaping reforms are already delivering results, with vaping rates amongst 14- to 17-year-olds now in decline. We're also cracking down on the black market in tobacco, with over $350 million invested in enforcement and disruption. The legislation strengthens the powers needed to detect and respond to serious noncompliance, expanding the range of offences that can be investigated and prosecuted, including fraud, forgery, identity theft and trafficking in unapproved medicines. It gives the regulators what they need to act—to seize goods, pursue serious offenders and protect the public.

The government is also backing our hospitals, with an additional $1.8 billion for public hospitals and health services in the next year alone, because, when people are at their most vulnerable, in pain, in crisis, in hospital, they need to know that the care will be there. This legislation strengthens Medicare. It makes oversight smarter and delivers more timely care in more places, protecting public money and ensuring it's used where it matters the most. Helping patients—that's what Australians expect, and it's what Labor will deliver. We are not just repairing a system that we inherited from the former government; we are building something better, investing in care, protecting Medicare's legacy and making the system stronger. This is what practical reform looks like—cutting bureaucracy, supporting services and delivering real outcomes. I'm thrilled that the government has brought this bill to the Senate, and I look forward to seeing the work that the government will continue to do to invest in Medicare over the next term.

The coalition supports the measures in the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 to strengthen the effective administration of Australia's important health benefits schemes. We have a longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity of our health benefits schemes, such as Medicare and the PBS, and this bill is in line with that commitment. It implements a suite of measures designed to protect the integrity of Medicare, strengthen the regulations of goods under the TGA and introduce minor but necessary amendments to the tobacco act. It's important for us to be clear about the fact that we have long championed the need for strong and fair compliance within Medicare and other critical programs, like the PBS and Child Dental Benefits Schedule. We believe that preserving the integrity of these systems is fundamental to providing sustainable health care to Australians—to all Australians, not just Australians that can afford health care.

However, while we support this bill and the improvements it delivers, we also need to understand and acknowledge that there are some deficiencies here and the deeply concerning reality of Medicare under this Labor government. I think all of us saw through the last election campaign—and I witnessed it personally—our prime minister standing there with his Medicare card, saying, 'This is all you need to go to the doctor.' That is not a reality for most Australians. I spoke to many, many people throughout the election campaign, many women, who said they couldn't afford to go to the doctor themselves because they had to prioritise taking their children to the doctor, because they needed more than their Medicare card to get medical treatment for their families. I note Senator Whiteaker said that the government is looking at nine out of 10 medical appointments being bulk-billed by 2030. In 2022, when the coalition left government, 88 per cent were already being bulk-billed. So it's going to take us another five years to get to, effectively, where we were in 2022. That's something to have a think about.

The government's own national accounts confirm that there is a growing affordability crisis in our primary healthcare system, and that was reinforced by the many people that I spoke to throughout the campaign, yet all we have really seen from the Prime Minister is him waving around his Medicare card, which I believe is a disingenuous stunt to distract from the failure to provide Australians with affordable primary health care. That's not leadership. Australians deserve better than that, and Australian families shouldn't have to worry about which one of them can afford to go to the doctor that week. If you have three children sick that week, you should be able to take all three children to the doctor. You shouldn't have to determine which one it is going to be. That's because the coalition believes that every Australian deserves timely and affordable access for the health care that they need. That is a principal which guided our approach in government, when we delivered record-high bulk-billing rates, and it continues to guide us now in opposition.

We will support the passage of this bill. It is an important step in strengthening compliance and improving integrity in our public health systems. But let's be clear—this bill alone will not fix Medicare. It does not address the affordability crisis that I have spoken about. So we are going to continue to hold this government to account and to scrutinise this government in relation to their promises about Medicare—the promise that you don't need your credit card, that you need only your Medicare card when you go to the doctor. That is not the lived reality of Australians today. We will speak up for the millions of Australians who are currently paying the highest out-of-pocket costs on record when they get to the GP reception desk because of this government's failures. It is also one of the reasons that we have record ramping across our states, because people can't afford to go to the doctor so they go to the hospital, they go to emergency. That's not how this should work. That is a reflection of the outcomes that have been delivered by this government.

The coalition is incredibly concerned by the Albanese Labor government's disingenuous rhetoric about Medicare and the current state of bulk-billing. Let me reinforce this again: when this government came into office we handed them bulk-billing rates of 88 per cent. Today they stand at 77 per cent. You don't need a calculator—it's an 11 per cent variance downwards. It's not better, but worse. This government promised to strengthen Medicare, but it has been only weakened since they were elected. That 11 per cent that I talked about means 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits in the past year alone. Let's have a think about that.

Australians are now paying 45 per cent more to see a GP from their own pocket, and their out-of-pocket costs have literally reached the highest levels on record. That's not a good outcome; that's a bad outcome. This data has come from the government's own national accounts. It shows that more Australians are having to use their credit card along with their Medicare card, and that they are being charged the highest amount out-of-pocket on record. So let's stop and look at that again: the Prime Minister, during campaigning, said you don't need your credit card, you just need your Medicare card. But the national accounts tell us you need your credit card and you are going to have to spend more on your credit card for your visit to the doctor then you have ever had to before. That is shameful—it highlights that the Prime Minister is completely out of touch with the reality of pressures Australians are facing in this cost-of-living crisis. We already have a housing crisis. We have a rental crisis. We shouldn't have an affordability-of-healthcare crisis on top of it, but it appears that we do.

The Prime Minister, when he held up that Medicare card, would have known that the Department of Health's incoming government brief, released under FOI, estimated that some 23 per cent of GP clinics across Australia would not bulk-bill, despite the promises he made during the election. This data from the health department shows that millions of Australians, based on that and the other information that I've already provided, will still need their credit card along with their Medicare card, and, as I have just stated, you'll be paying more on that credit card. So not only do you still need it; you are going to be paying more on that card.

It's unfair to suggest that this government has delivered cheaper and more accessible health care to Australians when it absolutely has not. This is one of the many promises that Mr Albanese made at the last election, and we're going to watch this very closely. We've been very clear that we'll be constructive where we can but critical where we must. This is one of the areas where we must be critical because mums and dads in this country should not be making decisions about which one of their children or which family member they can afford to take to the doctor.

I rise today to speak in strong support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill is not just another piece of legislation; it is a vital step in protecting and strengthening Medicare, the backbone of our health system and one of the proudest achievements of Labor governments past and present.

The contribution that we just had from the good senator from the other side, Senator Kovacic, neglected to talk about the almost 11 years that the coalition were in government and what they did while they were in power. They neglected the health system in this country and did everything they could to run down Medicare, and they failed to train enough GPs. You've had a Labor government for one term, and we have very clearly put health back on the agenda. The Australian people overwhelmingly voted in support of the policies that we put forward around Medicare and in strengthening Medicare. They supported the urgent care clinics that we had already established. They supported the 50 additional urgent care clinics.

The point was made previously by the senator about people choosing to go to accident and emergency. She is right about that, because they were doing that for the 11 long years that they were in power. What we have now are the urgent care clinics. I would like to talk about the urgent care clinic in Launceston where I live. Knowing that Tasmanians have some of the worst health outcomes in the country, thanks to those people opposite, it has overwhelmingly had great success, with over 33,000 northern Tasmanians visiting that one urgent care clinic. It's one of the most successful urgent care clinics in the country, if not the most successful. There is stability around the GPs that are there and the services that they are providing, so much so that they have extended their hours from 8 am till 8 pm and also over the weekend. It has been a great success.

Australians, as I said, have made it very clear that they want a health care system that is fair, accessible and built on the principle that no-one should be denied care because of their bank balance. They voted for Medicare. They voted for better health outcomes. They voted for a government that puts patients first and that puts patients before profit. The Liberals and the Greens need to get out of the way and let us deliver for the Australian people. We want to deliver what they need and what they deserve. Labor has listened not just during the last term of parliament but over the previous 11 years, because we actually have lived the experience and seen our family, our friends, our community members who were denied access to the medical treatment that they needed.

Labor has listened; we've acted. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive, making it easier for families, pensioners and concession cardholders to see a GP without paying out-of-pocket. That is nearly 12 million Australians who now have better access to care. Specifically, in my home state of Tasmania—where cost-of-living pressures have bitten hard and access to GPs can be limited—this has made a real difference, an immeasurable difference, to those people's health outcomes and their lives.

We in Labor have also made medicines cheaper. Australians can now get two months worth of medicines for the price of one prescription. Those same people on the other side, when they were in government, bowed to the pharmaceutical guild when they were advised by the department to do exactly that—to make it easier, so that you go to the GP less often and it costs you less money. Now they come in here and want to rewrite history and pretend that they actually care about Australians' health. But Australians always see through the fakeness.

We know, as the Australian people do, that it is in the DNA of those on the other side to destroy Medicare. They don't believe in universal care. If they believed in universal care and Medicare, they would have done more when they were in government for 11 long years. But what did we see during the election campaign, from Mr Dutton and those opposite? They wanted to bring American politics—the Trump philosophy—here to Australia. It's another reason why they were rejected, because Australians know that Americans have to pay for their own medications, have to pay to see a doctor and do not have universal healthcare. We don't want it. The Australian people said no.

Now, the fact that you can actually get two months worth of your medication on one prescription is actually saving Australians money; $1.5 billion will be saved over four years. For people managing chronic conditions, like diabetes, heart disease or arthritis, this means fewer trips to the pharmacy, fewer gaps in treatment and more money in your pocket. Again, in Tasmania, where we have one of the oldest and fastest-ageing populations with some of the highest rates of chronic illness in this country, this reform is not just helpful; it is essential. And we have not stopped there.

We have rolled out urgent care clinics across the country, including in Tasmania. These clinics, as I said before, take pressure off emergency departments and give people somewhere to go when they need care fast but don't need to be in hospital. When your child or grandchild falls off their bike and breaks their arm, now you can go to an urgent care clinic; you don't have to spend five or six hours in an emergency department to get an X-ray and then get a cast put on. This is less stressful for the child and certainly less stressful for their parent or carer.

These are practical things that have real impacts on people's quality of life, and Australians were crying out for them. That's why they voted for Labor.

This bill builds on that record. It strengthens Medicare and its integrity by cracking down on fraud and misuse. It streamlines processes so our doctors and nurses can spend less time on paperwork and more time with patients. It gives the department the tools it needs to manage shortages of essential medicines and therapeutic goods. And it supports our vaping reforms to protect young people from harmful, unregulated products. These are not abstract reforms. They are real, tangible improvements that will help real people—especially in communities like mine, in Tasmania, but right around our country.

But let's be very clear. We cannot take Medicare for granted. We have seen what happened when the Liberals were in charge. There was a decade of neglect; bulk billing rates plummeted; out-of-pocket costs soared; regional health services were gutted; mental health services were left to languish. And every time they had the chance to invest in Medicare, they chose not to. Why? Because destroying Medicare is in their DNA. It's what they believe in, in their heart of hearts. They do not believe in universal health care. They do not believe in equality. They do not believe in equity. They believe in a system where the size of your wallet determines the quality of your care. That is not the Australia I believe in and it is not the Tasmania I fight for.

While this bill enjoys broad support, I want to send a clear message to the Greens and others in this chamber: don't stand in the way of progress. We have seen them block or delay reforms in housing, energy, migration and more. While they may do so in the name of principle, the result is the same—Australians are left waiting. We cannot afford delays here. This bill is about protecting Medicare. Blocking it or dragging out debate will mean leaving our health system exposed, letting inefficiencies persist and failing the millions of Australians who rely on Medicare every single day.

I've just been upstairs at a function, talking about chronic pain and the fact that we still don't have enough people in the medical fraternity who actually recognise and support those who live with chronic pain. Anyone who has any form of arthritis, for instance, lives—as I do—with pain every single day. The fact that you can go and get two months worth of scripts for the cost of one makes a big difference, not only to your hip pocket. For too many people who put off getting their scripts refilled and don't have the pain medication that they need, this will change lives.

This is what a Labor government does. This is why people on this side of the chamber fight every day, and we'll continue to fight every day to protect Medicare. We know the high rates of chronic illness. We know that regional communities need this bill as much as every Tasmanian does. They need a government that will listen to them, that will then take the action that is needed, and that won't dither around the edges.

Labor is acting. We are investing in people, in infrastructure and in innovation. We are listening to healthcare professionals and acting on expert advice. We are delivering reforms that will make a difference to the lives of everyday Australians. This bill responds to the Philip review recommendations to protect the integrity of our health benefit schemes. These include the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. It shortens the timeframe for lodging bulk-billed claims, strengthens investigation powers and ensures consistency across the system.

Let's be clear: under the US President's free trade agreement, one of the areas that he wants to attack the most is our PBS. Why? Because we deliver through that system. A Labor government has ensured that Australians can have access to affordable medication, and we will defend that. The Minister for Trade and Tourism, Minister Farrell, who sits in this chamber, will fight—just as the Prime Minister will and just as everyone else on this side of the chamber will—to protect the PBS.

This bill improves pharmacy approval processes, helping Australians access medicines faster, and it gives the department the flexibility it needs to respond to shortages and public health emergencies. We know that during COVID there was a real issue with not having access to all the medications that people suffering from chronic illness needed, because of demand. We have learnt from that. We're about protecting Australians' access to the medications that they need when they need them.

This is what good government looks like. It's practical, it's compassionate, it's kind and it's focused on outcomes. Australians know the value of Medicare—specifically, as I said, in my home state of Tasmania, which I am here to represent alongside my new colleague Senator Dowling, who joins us as a new senator in this place. We will always stand up and fight for Tasmania because that's what we're sent here to do. That's why the Senate is made up of state and territory representatives. So I am unashamedly speaking for Tasmanians, who need this bill and need Medicare. That's why they voted overwhelmingly for a Labor government.

As for the criticism of the Prime Minister standing up and using the Medicare card, we know it worked, because that's what they complain about all the time. They were complaining about a little card that he was holding up that represented health access for all Australians, not a credit card, which is what they preach about all the time. It shouldn't matter where you live, what your postcode is. It shouldn't matter how much money you have in your wallet. It shouldn't matter how big your credit card is. You just need that little green and gold card, because that's a right of every Australian. It's certainly the right of every Tasmanian to have access to good health care, because at the end of the day it affects everyone. If you can't work because you're in chronic pain or you can't get medication or you can't get in to see a specialist or a GP, then you aren't able to enter and stay in the workforce. It affects the economy, and that impacts everyone. I'm urging people to get behind this bill and support this bill because it's good legislation. As I said—and I'll say it again—we will always stand up for Medicare and strengthen it.

I note that this is not my first speech. I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The bill is another example of the government's commitment to high-quality public health care—health care that is affordable and accessible. I congratulate the former assistant minister for health, Ged Kearney, for her work in progressing this bill and its reforms. The bill is about making a system that's fairer, tighter and more secure.

Labor governments have had that commitment to universal health care for decades from Whitlam, the visionary who introduced universal health care to our country, to Hawke, who restored and entrenched Medicare as a fair and accessible system, and to Keating, who further refined and funded it and made sure it is the lasting pillar of Australian life that it is recognised as today across the whole parliament. Labor prime ministers have continued to refine, improve and enhance it. This bill is part of that journey, and long may it continue. Labor built Medicare, and we're determined to keep it strong for generations to come, but it will only remain universal and sustainable if every dollar is spent where it is meant to be spent—on the care of Australians.

When we came to government in 2022, it had never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall after a decade of neglect and cuts to Medicare. That is why strengthening Medicare was a key focus of our election platform, and it's why we've acted decisively on it in our first term. In just two years we've delivered more doctors, more bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics across the nation. Our investment in Medicare urgent care clinics is making a real difference. I know that because there are five of them in Tasmania, and every day people are asking for more accessibility and the presence of more Medicare urgent care clinics. I'm glad to see that we have committed to expanding them by three more across Tasmania.

Let's take a moment to talk about the practical difference that these urgent care clinics make to people's everyday lives. I'm reminded of hearing the story from an elderly man in Bridgewater during the election campaign. That man was forced to travel over half a day on a round trip by bus to Rosny to his closest healthcare centre. Now, with an urgent care clinic open in Bridgewater, he can walk to get the health care he needs and deserves, completely free with no appointment required. More than 1.5 million patients have received similar free urgent care, without waiting for hours in medical emergency departments. These clinics are open seven days a week with extended hours, and no credit card is required, just the Medicare card. That's exactly how it should be. Your health care shouldn't depend on the limit of your credit card. That's why investing in Medicare is so important.

The bill in front of the chamber today is another step to improving the integrity of it. It is so critical that we know that when we allocate such a large proportion of taxpayer money—public funds—it is going towards its intended purposes. That's why we're putting in place these integrity measures. It's so we can continue to maintain the trust that that great system has. Labor created Medicare, and only a Labor government will protect and strengthen it. That's what we're doing, with the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation more than 40 years ago—$8½ billion to deliver more bulk-billed GP visits, hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors.

For the first time, we're expanding the bulk-billing incentive to all Australians and introducing a new incentive for practices that bulk-bill every patient. By 2030, nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed and the number of fully bulk-billed practices will triple to almost 4,800 across the nation—an extraordinary achievement. Bulk-billing rates are already rising again, in every state and territory, delivering six million additional free visits in just over a year.

We know regular GP care prevents serious illness and reduces pressure on our hospitals. That's the beauty of this measure. Hospitals are always going to be under pressure, but trying to keep people out of emergency departments by getting them the care they need through the urgent care clinics, so they're getting that advice and staying out of emergency departments, is systemic reform. It's not just making health care accessible and affordable, so taking pressure off the cost of living; it's systemic reform. That's why we're also investing $662 million in a workforce package to expand the largest GP training program in our history—2,000 new GP trainees every year by 2028, complemented by an unprecedented increase in overseas-educated doctors joining our system.

We're delivering cheaper medicines, with the cost of a PBS script capped at $25—the largest cut to medicine prices in the history of the PBS. We've seen discussion recently around the world about our PBS, in trade discussions. We hold it up as a source of pride; it is something that we will never compromise on. There's much to admire about the American healthcare system in terms of some of the great innovation that they produce, but, certainly, as to what they spend in relation to healthcare outcomes, it's not something we would ever seek to replicate. They spend about twice the amount Australia does per capita and they produce worse outcomes. So I think that investing in and protecting our great system, which is admired around the world, is something we should continue to celebrate. Australians have already saved more than a billion dollars on their prescriptions under this government. We've made around 300 medicines available on 60-day prescriptions and lowered the PBS safety net threshold. Again, that's real cost-of-living relief.

The bill in front of this chamber helps crack down on serious non-compliance and fraud more effectively, because we know that every dollar we stop from being misused is a dollar that stays in the system for the care of Australians, including families in regional communities like mine in Tasmania. We're also taking strong action on vaping and illegal tobacco, protecting young Australians and cracking down on organised crime.

We're investing $1.8 billion in public hospitals next year, taking Commonwealth funding for hospitals to a record $33.91 billion in 2025-26 and delivering year-on-year growth of 12 per cent. That's in stark contrast to the $50 billion cut to hospitals from those opposite, which is not mentioned very often anymore but is there in the budget papers. Colleagues, these numbers represent real improvement in the lives of everyday Australians: a Tasmanian parent who can now take their sick child to an urgent care clinic on a weekend and get seen quickly, without an appointment and for free; a pensioner who can afford all of their medicines; a young GP getting their start in a regional practice.

And you see, when these young GPs come into regional communities, how quickly they are embraced by the communities, who are crying out for GPs. I know that, in every Tasmanian community I travel to, they always ask, 'When we can get more GPs?' The University of Tasmania is training a record number of GPs right now, and there are great incentives for those GPs to move into regional clinics, serve those communities, become part of the communities and become trusted advisers—and to do it under a system that rewards them for providing bulk-billing. That's what some of Labor's reforms are all about—improving the incentives in the system so that patients get seen more quickly, with more accessibility and more affordability. Ideally, they are bulk-billed; the target for 2030 is nine out of 10 Australians being bulk-billed.

Labor's record is clear. We are making Medicare stronger, fairer and more accessible so that nobody is left behind and every Australian can get the care they need when they need it. These are responsible, forward-looking measures. I cannot see why anybody who supports Medicare would oppose improving the integrity of Medicare. We must maintain the trust in this system that has served Australia well for decades. It is such a powerful brand. Every Australian recognises it. Every Australian has a Medicare card. They should cherish that. It's not something many citizens around the world have in their wallet—a card of equivalent performance or equivalent entitlements. That little piece of plastic, or the digital card on your phone, is such a powerful vision of what it means to be an Australian. It's so entrenched now that nobody would dare challenge Medicare.

But to protect it, we must continue to ensure every dollar spent and invested towards it goes back to Australian citizens, to patients, to delivering quality healthcare through the system, from GPs right through the rest of the system. That is what this integrity process is all about—restoring and continuing to keep trust in our system where we know those dollars will flow to patient outcomes. These are responsible, forward-looking measures that protect Medicare, protect public funds and protect every Australian. That is something that I want for every Australian.

Finally, I commend the work. This wasn't just a policy process that happened overnight; the integrity measures were part of the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, who is a respected policy official who has been around for decades in various government agencies. He knows what he is talking about. The government's ongoing investment in and improvement to Medicare will see the system continue to go from strength to strength for future generations.

There is a lot of discussion about intergenerational equity at the moment and of young people in many respects, such as housing, not having things as good as previous generations did, but one gift that previous generations will be giving to future generations is a universal Medicare system. Imagine being born today in Australia under a system of universal healthcare. You are very lucky. You have won the birth lottery, in a sense, in terms of growing up in a country that gives you universal healthcare. Your parents will be supported through the Medicare system—your mum, your dad, whatever your family makeup is. You will be supported right from your birth, and it will support you as you grow up in age. Your name will be printed on the family Medicare card, and when you grow into adulthood you will have your own Medicare card.

I hope that we never let people forget how critical that system is. It didn't just come around by accident, and it was opposed for a long, long time. It was Whitlam's bravery to put it up at the time. It was a radical idea that really was before its time. He fought on with that, and then it was sort of repealed in many respects, and it took Hawke and Keating to double down on it. Today, nobody dares challenge the system of Medicare. As I said, there are people around the world who yearn to have a similar system that delivers such great outcomes for our country, for our constituents. I don't think anybody takes that little bit of green plastic for granted.

So I do commend the work of the review panel. I commend the work of the Albanese government in making Medicare a centrepiece of its election agenda. As the Prime Minister has made very clear, this term is all about delivery. Whilst there have been lots of cries around to distract the focus of the issue of the day—there's something happening overseas—we will never be distracted from what we promised in the last election and making sure that we actually deliver, because Australians put their trust in the Albanese Labor government. Every one of us, particularly new members and senators, know we're here, in large part, because people trusted us to deliver. This measure around Medicare, in terms of backing it up with funding, is part of the delivery process. I do commend the bill. Thank you.

I just want to talk about a couple of colours—green and gold. They're our national colours. They're worn by the Wallabies and the Matildas. They're worn with pride because they symbolise who we are as a nation: our belief in freedom, respect, fairness, equality of opportunity and mateship—looking after one another. That's why it's very appropriate that those green and gold colours are the colours of another national icon, our Medicare card.

Each one of us in this chamber, whether on the floor or in the gallery, or people who might be listening across this great country or watching on television—every single one of us carries one of these, and we know what it stands for. This little card represents the freedom to access high-quality health care when we need it, without fear of crippling costs. It embodies the respect and dignity afforded to us at our most vulnerable moments. It enshrines the principle of fairness—that all of us, regardless of wealth, postcode or background, are entitled to the same essential care. Above all, it speaks to the equality of opportunity to access health care, because a sick child in regional New South Wales—the great state that I represent—deserves the same chance as an Australian child in the city.

We must never forget, however, how hard-won this little green and gold card was. Before Gough Whitlam introduced the first version of Medicare, called Medibank, in 1975, the No. 1 cause for personal bankruptcy in Australia was medical debt. For a moment, just imagine being forced to choose between life-saving treatment and putting a roof over your kids' head or putting food on the table. Parents were driven into crushing debt to save their children's lives. People sold their homes to get medical treatment, and, when it failed, that left families in debt, homeless and in deep grief. It wasn't good enough for us, as Australians, so Prime Minister Whitlam, a Labor prime minister, found a better way, enrolling 90 per cent of Australians into public health insurance.

Those on the opposite side can run from the truth, but they can't undo their history. It was Malcolm Fraser's government that dismantled and privatised Medibank. It took another Labor government under Bob Hawke to restore it—this time in that name that we now all recognise, with the green and gold lettered Medicare card.

Since then, Medicare has been under constant threat from those opposite—the Liberal and National parties in coalition. When Tony Abbott, in 2013, brought down his first budget, he slashed tens of billions of dollars from the health budget. This was from Medicare and from hospital funding. He froze the bulk-billing rebate. It was, effectively, a punishing regime against our GPs and their businesses. And he just didn't care. He didn't want to uphold our belief in the green and gold values. The party that says it's all about business all the time knocked hundreds of GP surgeries around this country out of business. They couldn't help but muck around with Medicare. Time and time again, they've done it.

During that particular period of time, I chaired the health committee. We travelled the country, holding hearings in every state and territory. We saw that our values and respect for that green and gold were completely disappearing. We found people waiting longer in hospitals, we found people paying more for GP visits and we found people struggling to get the care that they deserved. That's why, in government, Labor has acted decisively to strengthen Medicare, and it's why we remain committed to doing even more in this term of parliament.

In 1975 Whitlam imagined a country where no-one would go broke to see a doctor. He was followed up in recovering that vision by Bob Hawke, who made it real. Labor governments have defended Medicare ever since, and it's Labor under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that will protect your Medicare card, strengthen your Medicare access and give you a chance to get the bulk-billing that you need and deserve, because that is the vision for all Australians that began with Labor and will be reinstituted with Labor.

In our first term we tripled the bulk-billing incentive—it was frozen for years under the coalition—but we didn't stop there. That was the incentive to get the doctors to begin to bulk-bill again, particularly for children, the aged and people who just needed a bit of a hand. We reduced the cost of PBS medicines to just $7.70 for pensioners to get the medical attention they need and the ongoing medical care of proper medication. Importantly, we prioritised women's health for the first time, with a new network of 22 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, and we'll increase that to 33.

I want to acknowledge the great work of my colleague here in the chamber Senator Marielle Smith from South Australia for her leadership on matters medical, particularly for women, in the last period of time we were in government here, the period between 2022 and 2025—hard work so that we could get a plan to make sure Medicare works better for all Australians. That includes women, who are too often left out and cut out by the policy decisions of the Liberal and National parties. You can understand why. While there's a smattering of women here in the Senate, there's barely a woman for the Liberal and National parties in the House.

As duty senator for much of the country west of the Great Dividing Range in my great state of New South Wales, I've seen the damage that coalition cuts inflicted, but I've also seen the differences that Labor reforms are making. In Wagga Wagga and Bathurst and across this vast country there are 61 Medicare mental health centres that are coming into being, changing lives and bringing judgment-free, cost-free medical mental health care to the regions. I want to congratulate my good friend in the other place the minister for mental health and member for Dobell, Emma McBride, for her incredible policy leadership and for bringing that to bear. Going out and visiting those sites is giving me incredible confidence that people who need mental health care right across this country—region or city—can finally walk through the door when they need the care and get the care that they need.

There's also the roll-out of 87 urgent care centres. These clinics are easing pressure on emergency departments, and they're helping Australians get free, fast care where and when they need it. My good friend and colleague Dr Gordon Reid is the member for Robertson in the Terrigal-Erina-Gosford region of New South Wales where I happen to live. He got one of these urgent care centres established at Umina. People in the community that I live in, when they were coming to vote, were telling me how much this changed their access to a doctor. I know that where I live 18,908 of my fellow citizens have now been able to access the health care they needed, and all they had to do was show up with their Medicare card to get the care they needed. There were no urgent care centres when Labor came to government in 2022—zero, zip, none. We brought them into being, and it's affecting, in a very positive way, millions of lives across this country. Out in Farrer, the seat of the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, since that centre was opened, 11,054 people who live in and around the area of Albury have been able to go to an urgent care centre with that green and gold card, walk in and get the care they needed—because Australians believe they have a right to that and because this Labor government is determined to make that reality. We're on our way to rebuilding Medicare after the decimation of nine long years of the life being sucked out of Medicare under the Liberal and National parties.

Every taxpayer in this country wants us to make sure that every dollar we receive is spent really well. When you've lived life for a little while, you know that, apart from the amazing, wonderful people who do great work for us in every sector, particularly the health sector, there's always some shonky, greedy person who tries to rip us off. Labor cannot turn a blind eye to that. We have to stand up for the integrity of the system, and we need to make sure that your taxpayer dollars really work hard and that nobody rips off the system that we need to keep Australians healthy. That's why Minister Butler showed great leadership in 2022, commissioning Dr Pradeep Philip to create an independent review into the Medicare integrity and compliance structures. In response, we've established the Medicare Integrity Taskforce. That was a commitment we made in the 2023-24 budget. It probably wasn't on the front page of any newspaper, and you probably haven't heard about it, because some things aren't—can I say—sexy enough to go in the newspaper. But you want us to make the system works, and that is one of the things we have done. There's a lot of work the government does to maintain integrity. So, with funding provided then and more funding in this year's budget, we are enabling the taskforce to deliver the Philip review's recommendations.

The bill before us that I'm addressing today, the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025, is a health bill to do the work that's been recommended by that taskforce and the review. What it does is close the loopholes, streamline enforcement and strengthen the investigatory powers to tackle fraud, especially in relation to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which we often just call the PBS—all of us know what that means in Australia. A warning: if you are a fraudster or a rip-off merchant and you are trying to take money from your fellow Australians unethically and illegally, there's a cop on the beat now, and they'll be coming after you. We know you're a minority, but we're not going to leave you to continue to rip off your fellow Australians.

This bill aligns Medicare compliance powers across the system, and it makes it easier to conduct the kind of investigations that need to happen and to collect evidence in particularly serious criminal cases. Sadly, we have to do this because of the shonks, the dodgys, the rip-off merchants and the people who aren't of good faith in our nation. Let me be clear: these measures do target this minority—the small minority who abuse the system, whether by mistake or by deliberate deception.

The bill also improves the process for pharmacists under the National Health Act, it cuts red tape and enables faster essential access to medicines, and it aligns advertising restrictions for e-cigarettes across both the Therapeutic Goods Act and the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023, following the government's recent vaping reforms. It's a really big and important clean-up and integrity measure. I do note and acknowledge that, in a spirit of bipartisanship, this bill is going to be supported by those opposite. I'm glad. Maybe they've seen the error of their ways. Maybe they'll stick with Labor going forward in providing proper health care to Australians—fair, equitable and decent access to the care we need. It's great that they're voting for this bill today.

Medicare is not just a line item in a budget; it is a national green and gold treasure. It represents who we are and what we believe in. With this legislation, we honour that legacy, we strengthen that legacy and we say, clearly and proudly, 'The green and gold of Medicare is here to stay.' Under Labor, we will always protect it and enhance your access to healthcare, and I commend the bill to the house.

I also rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Our doctors and health professionals in Australia do life-saving and life-changing work every single day. They are hardworking professionals, committed to patient care, and, of course, we know that most of these health professionals do the right thing every day. In fact, they go above and beyond to serve their fellow Australians.

But we also know that some are not; not all are abiding by the Medicare rules. We place an enormous amount of trust in our healthcare professionals. In fact, we place our lives and the lives of the people we love the most in their hands. The Australian people too place an enormous amount of trust in us as a government to oversee the system of Medicare, which is so important and so embedded in the Australian way of life and all that we value in terms of our healthcare system and in choosing what we fund in a public policy sense. So it is essential that Medicare is not just always in a process of continual improvement but that we're working to protect the system to make sure that it is strong against any kind of threat or risk of misuse and that it's financially stable over the long term. Strengthening Medicare isn't just about expanding services and building the system; it's also about upholding the integrity of the system that millions of Australians rely upon every single day.

In November 2022, our Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, commissioned health economist Dr Pradeep Philip to lead an independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance. The findings of that review were clear: while most practitioners are doing the right thing, our systems need strengthening to better detect and prevent fraud, errors and misuse. In response to that review, our government established the Medicare Integrity Taskforce, funded through the 2023-24 and 2024-25 budgets to implement the Philip review's recommendations.

That's what this bill before us is seeking to do. It amends the National Health Act, the Health Insurance Act, the Human Services (Medicare) Act and the Dental Benefits Act and covers health insurance, Medicare, dental benefits and more to respond to a range of the issues identified in the Philip review. It ensures we can better detect and respond to fraud, strengthen investigative powers and reduce the Medicare claim window from two years to one, maintaining flexibility. Importantly, these changes will only affect a small number of providers, and it's those providers who already aren't doing the right thing. These changes will help us build a more protected and more sustainable Medicare system, one that delivers safe, high-quality care now and into the future.

These changes are very important. Strengthening Medicare is in our DNA as a Labor movement. We built Medicare. We are incredibly proud of the impact it has had on lives in Australia. In fact, we are the envy of the world. But we are also deeply ambitious for our Medicare system because we know how important it is for Australians, how hard it was to build and how important it is that we defend it. Medicare is the pride of Australia, a proud Labor legacy, and it will always be our mission in government to strengthen it and to build on it.

Indeed, when we came to government, this work was more urgent than ever after a decade of neglect by the previous coalition government. When we were first elected, it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall. General practice was under pressure after a decade of coalition cuts and neglect, and we took swift and decisive action as the custodians of Medicare in this place. In our first term, we delivered the largest investment in Medicare since its creation and promised $8.5 billion to restore bulk-billing, expand the GP workforce and improve access to care.

Senator Smith, you will be in continuation at a later time.

I move:

That the general business debate not proceed today.

Question agreed to.

It was disappointing but perhaps not surprising that today in the Sydney Morning Herald we see the headline 'Secretive Albanese government goes backward on transparency'. This government has gone out of its way to obfuscate, block and ensure that Australians do not get access to information about government activities. This is the most secretive government since the Keating government, based on the records produced by the Centre for Public Integrity. It is hard to believe that this government has less integrity and less transparency than the last government, where the Prime Minister swore himself into secret ministries. That is the standard of where this government is. It is a government with less integrity than a government led by a person who swore himself into secret ministries.

We've seen Dr Chalmers, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, make false public interest immunity claims to the Senate which have been thrown out by the Information Commissioner. He proposes now to continue in that role for the next three years after lowering his colours so deeply that he has filed false claims to this Senate. The government is extremely arrogant. We all know that. We take that for granted. But the fact that they are prepared to trample on their constitutional obligations really is a low point in Australia's democracy. Our role here in the Senate is to hold the government to account. Where we seek the Senate's support and are granted the Senate's support in orders for the production of documents, we expect that the government elected by the Australian people will do the right thing and honour the requests of the Senate. This government has to get serious and change course on transparency and integrity. Comply with the orders and comply with freedom of information.

Ask anyone in this place, and they will tell you all politics is local. Without the work to improve the lives of locals out there, we don't have a job in here. The backbone of Australian communities is councils that care for the daily lives of locals. The MVPs are of course Queensland councils, because Queensland councils represent the most diverse, decentralised and disaster impacted communities in Australia.

Whilst my job here in the Senate technically only started on 1 July, since 3 May I have been out meeting Queensland communities and the mayors that represent them, including the City of Moreton Bay to launch construction on a long-overdue Youngs Crossing bridge with our wonderful MP, Ali France, and Mayor Peter Flannery. I went to Lockyer to inspect the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure Program with Mayor Tanya Mulligan. I went up to Toowoomba with Mayor Geoff McDonald and the show society to see the much-needed upgrades at the equestrian facilities at the showgrounds. I went over to the Sunshine Coast to see the exciting recycling initiatives in Nambour and the tourism upgrades for Mooloolaba with Mayor Rosanna Natoli. I went over to Scenic Rim to inspect sporting facilities with Mayor Tom Sharp. All of these are initiatives funded by the Albanese government.

I look forward to working closely with councils across Queensland. In fact, we have 77 incredible local governments across our massive 1.8 million square kilometre state. As someone who has worked in disaster management, I know firsthand how hard our councils work during times of disaster. In fact, we witnessed some incredible responsiveness from our South-East Queensland councils during Cyclone Alfred, which wreaked $1.2 billion worth of damage in February this year. Our councils jumped into action, making sandbag stations available to residents. I was there sandbagging at my local station along with hardworking council workers who were working overtime to protect their local communities. I'm looking forward to working very closely with our local councils.

I'm proud to have been named the Australian Greens LGBTIQA+ spokesperson. I take on this role at a time of great challenge for the community. To quote Alastair Lawrie, a hugely respected advocate:

There has been a disturbing rise in anti-LGBTIQ prejudice, including hate speech as well as threats of intimidation and violence …

Alastair notes:

The Commonwealth Government has been missing in action on anti-LGBTIQ extremism.

One example of that is its failure to appoint a LGBTIQA+ human rights commissioner. While Labor speaks a lot about support for social cohesion and has rightly spent tens of millions of dollars on the safety of faith communities in Australia, it has been silent on extremist attacks on LGBTIQA+ events and has failed to invest the same kind of money protecting the safety of LGBTIQA+ people. It has also failed to keep its promise to prohibit discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people by faith based schools and services, a decision that sends the message that mistreating LGBTIQA+ Australians is okay.

After marriage equality, LGBTIQA+ Australians and their allies had the legitimate hope that things would get better. They have not. In my new role, I will work to restore that hope. Tasmania was the last state to decriminalise homosexuality, but it now has some of the best LGBTIQA+ laws and policies in the world. We face the challenge of anti-LGBTIQA+ discrimination head on, and Tasmania is a far better place for having done so. I'm going to bring that Tasmanian spirit to my new role and will work to finally end discrimination against queer folks and right some of the egregious wrongs of the past.

Today we have learned that Fortescue has officially sounded a death knell for its Gladstone hydrogen project, after tens of millions of government funds have been wasted on a pipedream. A few weeks ago, I travelled to the facility at Aldoga, west of Gladstone, with the local member, Colin Boyce. $90 million of state and federal money went towards the promise of a hydrogen hub in Gladstone. Less than a year ago, the Labor Party were up in Gladstone, saying, 'It's okay that we're going to shut down your coal industry, because you're going to have all these hydrogen jobs.' That has turned out to be a completely false promise.

At this site, where $90 million were spent, there's a wonderful, massive shed. It looks fantastic. We spoke to a security guard there. Now only two or three people work there, with 90 people being sacked a few months ago because this project could not work. I don't know what we're going to do with this shed in the future. Fortescue says they're going to repurpose it. It would possibly make an excellent site for a Bunnings. But, really, I think we could have done that for a lot less than $90 million of government funds.

Worse, though, is the other money that has been spent there that has been somewhat hidden. At the site, there are huge transmission towers that have been built by a state government agency, Powerlink Queensland, that run from this shed out to various proposed wind and solar factories that were to be built to feed the hydrogen production. We don't know what the cost of those towers was. That's an additional cost on top of the $90 million. There is a water pipeline from Rockhampton that was built to bring water down to make hydrogen. That was a billion dollar cost. Hopefully that can be repurposed, but it was a billion dollar cost for something that's not going ahead. There has to be a proper inquiry into how much government money has been wasted on this ridiculous rubbish for no jobs in return. (Time expired)

Truth-telling is the foundation of trust, integrity and meaningful relationships. It paves the way for accountability and healing. In my home state of Victoria, the Yoorrook Justice Commission recently handed down its final report, marking the end of Australia's first formal truth-telling process. Yoorrook was set up by agreement between the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria and the Victorian government, but it operates independently of both. I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to everyone involved: the commissioners, the staff, the elders and the thousands of community members who gave evidence, many for the first time.

The testimonies recorded in the report added critical truths to our state's public record. In the lead-up to the report's release, Commissioner Travis Lovett walked 486 kilometres across Victoria from Portland to Parliament House in Naarm. I was proud to be there at the end of that journey, standing on the steps of the parliament with community, with mob and with allies. We all witnessed the handover of the final report. This marked an important moment in Victoria's truth-telling journey. The Yoorrook report confirmed that the violent colonisation of Victoria involves mass killings, widespread dispossession and policies that actively dismantled language, culture and kinship systems. The commission found that these actions met the legal definition of genocide, and it showed how those harms continue to infiltrate through systems that still fail our people today.

The commission called for transformative change through 100 recommendations, including treat-making, self-determination, and structural reforms across health, education and the justice system. These were big, bold ideas, but they were grounded in evidence, in testimony, and in deep listening. Truth-telling is never easy, but it's a form of respect—for yourself, for others, and for the future. (Time expired)

I congratulate Catherine Williams and the Centre for Public Integrity, and I thank them for their research into the declining transparency of the 47th parliament. In the last parliament, the Albanese government was more secretive than the Morrison government, which had a prime minister who had five secret ministries—quite an achievement! We know now from this research that the Albanese government is the second most secret government since 1993. Under the Keating government, compliance with OPDs was 92.5 per cent. Under the Albanese government in the last term, it was 32.8 per cent—less than a third of OPDs were complied with. Just one in four FOI requests are now granted in full—the lowest on record.

I have a challenge for the newly elected Labor government: you've got to do better than this. I heard so much, before I came to this place, about how Labor were going to do better, how much they smashed the Morrison government around secrecy and transparency, but it turns out that, when they actually get in the hot seat, they are more secretive. Scott Morrison's government was more transparent, respected the Senate more and complied with OPDs. This matters in our democracy and it matters more now than ever, when we have a Labor government with a whopping majority in the lower house. The Senate needs to be respected when it passes orders for the production of documents that it deems necessary to undertake our jobs, to represent our states or territories. It is not good enough. More Australians need to know that the last parliament under Labor was the most secretive in, probably, their lifetimes. You've got to do better.

Acting Deputy President Sterle, you will be interested to know that I recently had the great privilege of travelling on a large section of the Outback Way—the Great Central Road—all the way through to Yulara. This Western Australian stretch of the well-travelled route is 872 kilometres between Laverton and the WA-NT border. This road cuts through the nation's heartland and is critical. It's the only link that neighbouring communities have to health care, jobs, and trucks moving goods from the eastern and western states through that particular part. In 2022 the Morrison coalition government committed $400 million to a joint funding effort with the state to seal the entire road which, at the time, had 736 kilometres of unsealed section. Fast-forward three years, to where I saw, only a couple of weeks ago, that section is still unsealed.

Three years ago, WA's Minister for Transport said that $112 million was already allocated for works over 147 kilometres, through to 2025-26. We're halfway through 2025—what's the update? Main Roads Western Australia says that design and negotiations are under way. Three years, a combined $678 million, and there is zero progress. This third link into WA—as you would know, Acting Deputy President Sterle, is absolutely vital. Two years ago there was a fire down on the Nullarbor and there was a flood up at Fitzroy Crossing. We saw the Eyre Highway, the Trans-Australian Railway and the Great Northern Highway cut off, and Western Australia was turned into an island. We are to have freight—groceries included—sent all the way by ship from Melbourne and Adelaide.

It is unacceptable. Western Australia deserve better. Australians deserve better. The delays on these projects are unacceptable. This is not what taxpayers expect, and I expect the Albanese government to act with haste and deal with this important issue.

Today, I just want to pay tribute to Simon Lund, a deeply respected member of Victoria's firefighting community. Known to many as Lundy, Simon sadly passed away in May after a courageous battle with cancer caused by toxic exposure during his service with the Country Fire Authority. Simon began his journey with the CFA back in 1998, first as a volunteer, before joining as a full-time staff member. Over his 27 years of dedicated service across several brigades, he worked primarily as a senior technical field officer. In recognition of Simon's remarkable contributions, his wife Tracie and their three children were presented with the chief officer's commendation at his funeral, one of the highest honours by the CFA. It was a fitting tribute for a man whose work went beyond duty. It was a lifelong commitment to public service and to the Latrobe Valley community.

Simon's leadership extended far beyond the CFA. He was Vice President of the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council, president of ALP's Morwell branch, a delegate of the Australian Services Union and deputy group officer with the Hyland Group CFA. I had the honour of meeting Simon just a few weeks before his passing as a guest speaker at the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council annual dinner. He was someone who clearly was very dedicated to his cause and also, despite his illness, continued to advocate for the expansion of presumptive rights legislation to better protect CFA personnel, and I hope that my parliamentary colleagues in the state parliament are committed to advancing this in his memory. I extend my deepest condolences to Simon's family and friends. May he rest in peace.

I strongly support the recent efforts across the country to expand access to ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Almost every state and territory has now committed to allowing GPs to diagnose ADHD and prescribe appropriate medication in some form. The laggards? Victoria and the Northern Territory. The ADHD Senate inquiry made it clear: cost is a problem, and the pathways to diagnosis, support and medication are inconsistent. These are just some of the barriers people with ADHD face in seeking treatment. Allowing specially trained GPs to work to their full scope of practice is a crucial step in bringing down these barriers. People simply cannot afford ongoing specialist fees. Too many people are being bounced between services, starting with one professional group only to find they need to begin again elsewhere with different specialties, new fees and even longer waiting lists. Of course we must ensure these reforms are implemented safely with appropriate training and oversight, but it is a relief that states are now recognising how urgently these changes are needed and committing to action in line with the Senate inquiry recommendations. Victoria and the NT, now it is your turn. People are simply asking for the support and treatment they need. You have the power to help them access it. I urge the government to implement expanded ADHD pathways through general practice so that all Australians can get the timely, affordable and consistent supports that they deserve.

Last year, the government announced that New Zealanders living in Australia could join the ADF with Canadians, Brits and Americans, eligible to enlist from January this year. But, in response to a question on notice I put to the government in March, we've now learned that just three people have been recruited. That's right—just three, all of them from New Zealand. This scheme was supposed to fix our recruitment crisis. It clearly hasn't. In fact, it hasn't even scratched the surface. It has been an extraordinary failure, another headline-grabbing initiative with no substance behind it. While recruitment numbers flatline, this government has written yet another $800 million cheque to the US military industrial complex. That is $800 million more towards AUKUS, with no guarantees that any submarines will be delivered and no refund if the deal collapses.

Now, imagine how easily this recruitment crisis could be overcome if we invested that money into improving the lives of our brave ADF personnel. Imagine if the ADF were seen not as a last resort but as a respected, well-supported career path. The government's fanfare around this recruitment initiative now looks like smoke and mirrors. Was this mismanagement? Was it just another ill-conceived policy? Or, like the click-to-cancel subscriptions issue I raised yesterday, is this just another Labor thought bubble with no follow-through? Senator Lambie has said it time and time again: this government neglects our veterans and our ADF personnel. The truth is that we don't have a recruitment crisis; we have a retention crisis. Until our brave men and women are properly supported, respected and paid better, this crisis will continue, and the responsibility will fall at Labor's feet. (Time expired)

I rise to honour the service to this chamber and Australia of my friend and former colleague in this place David Fawcett. David was the 95th senator from South Australia. I always considered David to be the epitome of everything a senator should be: courteous, collegiate, diligent, considered and very knowledgeable in his area of interest or passion. It's hard to imagine he was ever on the green carpet, but he was, as the member for Wakefield, until he saw sense and came here.

David had an encyclopaedic knowledge of defence matters. His interest in defence came from his days as an Army pilot and later a test pilot. As an aside, I'll always be grateful to him. When we flew around South Australia in small planes, I used to usher him into the cockpit as a safety measure. I wish him and Lorna well for the next chapter of their lives. David is a keen yachtsman, and I know they have plans to travel. Thank you, David, for all your hard work for the Liberal Party and the Liberal cause. I thank you personally for your friendship and wise counsel.

This is not my first speech. Australia's biosecurity and our agricultural sector have today been thrown under the bus by the Albanese government. Without any consultation with Australian farmers, Labor has lifted the biosecurity import controls placed on US beef. Labor's contempt for Australian farmers, made very clear over the past three years, continues in its second term. In Western Australia we're used to our farming sector being deliberately ignored. Just ask our sheep producers in the west, who have been decimated by this Labor government's ban on live exports. Australia's beef industry is worth in excess of $75 billion per annum to our economy. Meanwhile, our export market sits at more than $15 billion.

The biosecurity import controls relate to herds brought across the US border from Canada, Brazil and Mexico. It's finished in America and labelled 'US Beef'. There are a range of exotic pests and diseases prevalent in these countries which could cause untold harm to Australian herds if they get here. This is a risk no Australian government, beef producer or consumer should ever play russian roulette with. There has been no consultation with beef producers or the broader farming sector. Farmers and the Australian public only found out about this rushed decision in today's newspapers. It's shameful, negligent, dangerous and an abuse of power. This decision may win favour with the US President, but, again, it defines our Prime Minister as weak and willing to sacrifice Western Australia and the broader farming sector on the altar of his ego.

It is with the deepest sorrow and a broken heart that I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend and comrade Sinead Francis-Coan who passed away last month. She was a ray of sunshine in whatever space she entered. She was always there to support, to guide and to lead when needed. Her energy and passion shone through every time. Sinead was so loved by so many people and by social, environmental and union movements. I want to read some of what they have said about Sinead. The National Tertiary Education Union said:

Sinead epitomised what it meant to be a union member and organiser, prioritising and living by solidarity and collectivism, channelling anger into hope and action and loyalty to the membership and her colleagues alike. It was a joy and an honour to be in struggle with her.

Rising Tide Newcastle said:

We would be hard pressed to think of anyone else who would show up so consistently on such a broad range of issues. She was an advocate for our planet, for union rights, women's rights, queer rights, youth rights, for affordable housing, multiculturalism, refugees and against the genocide in Palestine.

Charlotte McCabe, Newcastle city councillor, said:

As a lifelong activist and advocate, she took to her role as a councillor with ease.

…   …   …

She was tireless.

She was courageous

She was always always showing up and speaking out for what she believed in.

And she was always smiling.

Living her best life.

On top of her game.

It is impossible to put into words how much Sinead will be missed by so many. My deepest love and solidarity is with Sinead's family and loved ones. Rest in power, dearest Sinead.

When a local bank branch shuts down, it takes a part of the community with it. It's not just about putting a few coins into your account; it's a lifeline for small businesses who need cash floats and for people to get advice and a home loan. But banks don't care about that—they care about profits—and when your small town isn't worth it to them anymore they shut down. Bendigo Bank is closing their Queenstown branch. It's the last bank on Tassie's West Coast, so if residents need cash or financial assistance their closest bank will now be a two-hour drive away. Imagine being a small business. You've run out of cash in the middle of the day. You're the only one in the shop. You can't just jump in the car for a four-hour return trip, but your only other option is to say, sorry, card only. Not everyone wants to do that, and the internet isn't really reliable to keep the EFTPOS going. Banks packing up means the entire town suffers. Queenstown can still access some services through Australia Post, but when did they become a scapegoat for banks to leave regional towns in limbo?

Communities across Australia are being left without access to bank branches or ATMs, and that's why we need a community banking guarantee. The government would give money to communities to make sure there's a local bank in rural towns. It'd be a fixed amount of money and would be distributed by the council if a bank sets up in the area. The council would also have to bank at the bank. After all, if you want them to stay in the community, you've got to put your money where your mouth is. We need more people living in regional areas, but you've got to have basic services to attract new residents and keep them there. A community banking guarantee puts power back into the hands of the community, and I'd like to think that's something we can all get behind.

It is so good to be back in parliament and alongside so many new colleagues, including eight new Queensland MPs and one new Queensland senator. We want to say a big thank you to Queensland. Thank you for putting your trust in all of us. We will not take it for granted.

Queensland was loud and clear on election night, and their message has been received. Queenslanders didn't vote for division or negativity. Queenslanders voted for Labor's plan to continue to deliver Medicare urgent care clinics right across regional Queensland, and they voted for Labor's plan to deliver more bulk-billing. Queenslanders voted for Labor's plan to build more houses, including the 490 social and affordable homes being built right now in Cairns. Queenslanders said, loud and clear, that they wanted free TAFE and they want it permanently. That's exactly what our government will deliver. Queenslanders said loud and clear that they want 20 per cent cut from their student debt, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government has delivered with the very first piece of legislation this week. Queenslanders, including regional Queenslanders, voted for a Future Made in Australia as we transition to net zero, because they know that we must take action on climate change to protect and create more Queensland jobs. Labor's promise to Queenslanders is this: we will work hard every day to deliver on exactly what Queenslanders and all Australians are asking of this government—to deliver on Labor's plan.

What a rabble they are opposite! We've only been back in parliament for three days. The Nats are already at war, and the Libs are undermining their leader already. The behaviour they've been up to is absolutely disgraceful. They've learnt nothing from the election, and they're back to the bad old days from what we've seen from those opposite. Australia deserves so much better than this opposition.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Given the state and territory governments are responsible for the majority of urgent reforms that need to be made to Australia's broken childcare system to ensure we are properly protecting our kids, when will childcare laws across Australia begin?

Thank you, Senator Duniam, for the question. It has been a really distressing time in early childhood education as these devastating allegations have been brought forward. It is a really difficult time for all of those families of children affected, families who have children in early childhood education and care and really the whole community that is watching what's going on. We think it's really important that we use every lever that we have to make sure that we can keep children safe in early childhood education and care and make sure that parents have confidence that they are safe too.

We have introduced, as you know, really important Commonwealth legislation to cut funding from those providers who put safety ahead of profit. At the same time, we are working shoulder to shoulder with the states and territories—

Senator Duniam?

Just on a point of order on relevance, I asked specifically about the laws that are to come into effect from a state and territory point of view. I am happy with the federal stuff, but I would be keen to hear that.

I will draw the minister to that part of your question.

I had just come to the states and territories on what is a really important issue for children and for families. We are working with the states and territories right now, shoulder to shoulder. We think what families want to see right now is all of us working together. We will have at the next urgent standalone education ministers meeting in August a strong and significant package of child safety reforms. That's because, as you know, every child deserves to be safe in early education.

Senator Duniam, a first supplementary?

By what specific date have you asked state and territory ministers to have these urgent reforms in place?

I attended my first education ministers meeting at the end of June. At that meeting, both Minister Clare and I tasked officials with coming up with an urgent plan for reform. We also scheduled a standalone education ministers meeting for August solely focused on this package of significant and strong reforms, including the first-ever nationwide register of early childhood educators.

Senator Ruston?

I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Duniam's question was very, very tight. He simply asked by what date Australians families can expect to know when these measures are going to be put in place.

I think the minister has been directly relevant to the question.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I am giving a response. If a senator stands to make a point of order, I expect senators to be silent as I respond to it. The minister is being directly relevant, Senator Ruston. Minister Walsh, please continue.

You have asked for dates. We had a meeting at the end of June. We organised an urgent second meeting, which will be towards the end of August. (Time expired)

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Minister, have you or have you not asked state and territory ministers to have these urgent reforms and improvements to laws to protect our children completed and in place by a certain date? And, if you haven't, why haven't you?

Senator Duniam, thanks for the question. I think this issue—of keeping children safe in early childhood education and making sure that parents have the confidence that their children are safe—is absolutely an issue that should be above politics. We have really appreciated, on this side of the chamber, your bipartisanship and your offer of ongoing bipartisanship for the reforms that we're working on, in terms of both the legislation and what will be a strong and significant package of reforms brought by our education ministers.

Senator Cash?

The point of order is, again, in relation to direct relevance. We all agree the reforms are urgent, which is why we have asked: what date has the minister given the states to have reforms in place? Have you asked them this?

Minister Wong?

I would make the point first on what we thought was a bipartisan set of propositions—

Have you got a point of order?

I do; I'm speaking to the point of order. The minister is setting out the process by which these urgent reforms are being progressed. I would have thought it was self-evident to the opposition that that is directly relevant to the question that was asked. But, more importantly, I would have thought it was deserving of bipartisan support.

Senator Cash?

Again, on the point of order: with all due respect to Senator Wong as Leader of the Government in the Senate, the question was quite specific in relation to whether the minister has asked the state and territory ministers to have what we all agree are urgent reforms to protect our children completed by a certain date.

I understand very clearly the question. Senator Cash, it is my view that the minister is being relevant, but I will point her to that specific part of the question.

Officials and states and territories are in absolutely no doubt that these reforms are urgent. It's why we've called a special meeting to consider those reforms.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Prior to the election, big retailers like Kmart, Big W and Costco, as well as businesses in the clerical and banking sectors, applied to scrap penalty rates for workers earning less than $60,000. This move would have sent Australians' pay packets backwards and meant an overall reduction in their wages of up to $5,000 every year. What steps did the Albanese Labor government take to oppose this application, and what will a re-elected Labor government do to protect workers' wages?

Thank you, Senator Polley, who, along with every other Labor senator, has a very proud record of standing up for the penalty rates and wages of Australian workers.

As Senator Polley will remember, in the first term of the Albanese government one of our core aims was to ensure that Australians would earn more and keep more of what they earned. In our first term, the Albanese government delivered landmark workplace relations reforms—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Those opposite still haven't heard the message that Australians want to earn more and keep more of what they earn. In our first term, the Albanese government delivered landmark workplace relations reforms with a clear goal of getting wages moving for Australian workers, and that's exactly what we achieved. We addressed loopholes that undermine principles of fairness and improved access to secure jobs and better pay. We've reinvigorated enterprise bargaining, resulting in more cooperative, productive workplaces. We put gender equality at the heart of the workplace relations framework, helping drive the gender pay gap to its lowest level on record. We improved workplace conditions and protections across the board. In every annual wage review since taking office, we've backed minimum wage increases, with our most recent submission calling for an economically sustainable real wage increase. I'm pleased to see that, from 1 July, minimum wages have increased by 3½ per cent ahead of inflation.

These were significant and important reforms in our first term, but we know that there's more to do. Right now, the modern awards safety net can be undermined. Currently, penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards can be rolled up into a single rate of pay that leaves some employees worse off, and there are currently cases on foot where employers in the retail, clerical and banking sectors are seeking to trade away the penalty rates of lower paid workers on awards. Our government doesn't think that's fair. It's why we intervened in those cases to block that from happening, and it's why, just today, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Rishworth, has introduced legislation to protect penalty rates. We expect to see the whole House support that. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

It is understood that penalty rates are a vital part of the modern awards safety net, which supports some of the lowest paid workers in our country. Why do penalty rates and overtime rates matter so much—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senators, particularly those on my left, there needs to be silence while the question is asked. Senator Polley, please continue.

Why do penalty and overtime rates matter so much to these workers, and why is it so important that the Albanese Labor government's legislation is passed without delay?

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm not quite sure, after I asked for silence, why there wasn't silence.

I'm not surprised to see members of the opposition moaning and groaning about this topic, because we know they've never met a worker who depends on their penalty rates to pay their bills. We know that they still haven't heard the message that Australians voted for a government that ensured that they are earning more and keeping more of what they earn and that they rejected an opposition that was about cutting pay and making work more insecure.

I've got some news for you: penalty rates and overtime rates matter to working Australians. Employees relying on penalty rates are more likely to be women, to work part time, to be under the age of 35 and to be employed on a casual basis. We are talking about people like Emily, a retail worker from New South Wales, expecting her—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Oh, you're groaning. You don't want to hear about workers who depend on their penalty rates? How disrespectful. You don't want to hear about people like Emily, a retail worker who says that her penalty rates—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I foolishly thought that, if I asked for silence for the question, I might get silence for the answer. Obviously no-one got that message. There needs to be silence.

Labor wants to hear from people like Emily, who says that her penalty rates let her save a little for her bubba, help her move and ensure that her new little family has a roof over their heads. We're standing up for people like Emily; you might not. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

It is clear that protecting penalty rates is very important to millions of Australian workers. During the election campaign, the Albanese Labor government made protecting penalty rates a key pillar of our pitch to the Australian people for re-election. Minister, can you outline the response to that and why the government has taken this approach?

Thanks Senator Policy—Polley.

Opposition senators interjecting—

And she is full of policy—policy that supports working people in Australia! Like Senator Polley and everyone else over here, during the campaign I was incredibly fortunate to join retail, banking and hospitality workers outside the Stafford shopping centre on Brisbane's north side to launch this policy on behalf of the government. I can assure you that the announcement was well received by those workers and was quite obviously well received by the Australian voting public. At the time, it was clear that the coalition took a different view on penalty rates.

Former Liberal leader Peter Dutton—remember him—confirmed it when he said:

We don't propose any departure from the current arrangements.

The person over there who kept predicting we'd return to the Dark Ages was proven wrong by the Australian people.

Order! Minister Wong?

During both the primary and the first supplementary I did let it go, but Senator Cash might just want to draw a breath on the interjections while Minister Watt is answering.

I live rent free in his mind, Penny.

I need all senators to refrain from interjecting, please. Minister Watt, please continue.

It would appear that, from the coalition's statements, they still haven't heard the message from the election. We saw, this morning, shadow minister Tim Wilson—remember him?—call our plan to protect penalty rates 'distressing and disturbing'. The Liberals haven't changed. They haven't heard the message that people want to earn more. (Time expired)

My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In a leaked recording of comments to the Park Orchards Ratepayers Association in the lead-up to the last election, the now member for Deakin, Matt Gregg, said in relation to Labor's proposal on unrealised gains on superannuation that 'the briefing I've received is that that is not Labor policy', and, 'I was advised it is not Labor policy'. Mr Gregg went on to say, 'I'm not going to commit to that policy position that has been put to me because my understanding is it's not my party's policy.'

Did the member for Deakin mislead his new constituents, or will the government now abandon this unfair super tax grab?

I thank Senator Paterson for the question and congratulate him on his new responsibilities. I also congratulate the new member for Deakin. I have the opportunity to visit the electorate of Deakin during the election campaign, and it's clear that the new member for Deakin received the support of his new local community, and we are very pleased with the result from the federal campaign.

We have been very clear about what our tax policies are. We went to the election wanting to lower taxes for 14 million Australians. If you remember, the opposition—those that are seemingly so concerned around our tax policy now—went to the election wanting to raise taxes for 14 million Australians. It's hard to believe, but that was their position during the election campaign.

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson is on his feet.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! On my right!

Minister Watt! I just called order. Senator Paterson?

I did want to give the minister a reasonable opportunity to come close to the question, but she has not yet addressed the comments that the member for Deakin made to his constituents, saying the tax on unrealised gains was not Labor policy. Did he lie or are you abandoning it?

Senator Paterson, you need to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw.

I also remind senators that when you are calling a point of order, please get straight to the point of order—there's no need to make comments around your question. It's often not necessary to repeat the question. Just be clear about the point of order. I think the minister is being relevant, Senator Paterson, and I will continue to listen very carefully. For me to listen carefully, I need to have silence. Minister Gallagher?

I did refer to Labor's tax policies that we took to the last election and that we will implement in government, and that is directly relevant to the question Senator Paterson has asked. I can understand they are still a bit sore about losing the electorate of Deakin. Can I list all the other electrics they lost as well? There were a number of them. Critical to the loss that they are clearly still mourning over on the other side of the chamber is the policy on tax that they took to the election, which was to increase tax for 14 million Australians. People understood the choice and they made that choice, and they elected Labor members—particularly, in relation to this question, into the electorate of Deakin.

Our tax policy was clear. Our policy on high-balance super accounts has been clear. We took it to the election, we said we would, we've had the election and that remains our policy.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Hostplus chairman Damien Frawley has said the proposed tax on unrealised gains was 'a punitive outcome' and 'a disincentive for members to invest in productive, high-quality and even nation-building opportunities'. Does the minister share the concerns of experts such as Mr Frawley, as well as your own member for Deakin?

We've been clear on what our tax policy is. I've been watching some of the contributions that have been made since the election around high-balance super accounts. There's obviously been a fair bit of commentary written about it, in particular, in the Australian and the Financial Review, so I am aware of contributions that have been made by a range of stakeholders. We consulted heavily on the high-balance super accounts, if you recall, over the last parliament. There were opportunities for people to provide their contributions at that point in time. We didn't manage to get it through the Senate in the previous term, but it remains Labor policy, and we would be looking to get it through the parliament this term and as soon as we can.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

The Australian reports this morning concerns from Labor MPs who hate this tax. They join former prime minister Paul Keating, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, former RBA governor Philip Lowe, former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty and even the current ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, in slamming the government's unfair super tax grab. Why is the government stubbornly persisting with a friendless tax on unrealised capital gains?

(—) (): I did read the article in the Australian this morning and, indeed, have been following their campaign against the high-balance super tax concessions. I would remind those in this chamber that the proposal by the government, the high-balance super tax policy that we have, affects about half a per cent of people with super balances over $3 million. They're still concessional rates of tax, just not as concessional. So I think we need to get a bit of perspective here. I understand the Australian is running a campaign against it. It's pretty obvious. We've seen contributions being made by a range of stakeholders about elements of the design of the tax policy. It remains Labor's policy. We think it's a modest and sensible change to the super concessions arrangement to ensure that super remains fair for all. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. The Albanese government is trying to appease an increasingly belligerent United States, having recently provided an additional $800 million to the US military as part of AUKUS, bringing the total money paid to Donald Trump under AUKUS to $1.6 billion. This is right at the same time as Donald Trump has put AUKUS under a blowtorch, with a review that might see the subs cancelled. What possible justification can the government provide as to why we're giving Donald Trump $1.6 billion for nuclear submarines we may never get, with no strings attached and no clawback?

I think the Greens political party's position on AUKUS is well known. I think the Greens political party's position on the US alliance is well known. You're entitled to those views. They are views that do not accord with the views of the majority of the Australian people. They are views that we in this government do not share, and I would hazard a guess—I would hope—that those on the opposite side would also not share those views. While I'm talking about AUKUS—and you've made your views on that very clear, Senator Shoebridge—

Ask Paul Keating about AUKUS!

 Are you going to keep interrupting? I like the way that you're happy with having standing orders for yourself but not for anybody else. Is that how it works? Are you done?

Through the chair!

Order!

Oh, through the chair? I'm pleased that you are again seeking to impose standing orders on everyone else that you don't impose on your members.

Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order?

President, I'd just ask you to direct the minister to provide an answer to my question about the $1.6 billion paid to Donald Trump under AUKUS.

Senator Shoebridge, if you want the minister to answer your question, don't make interjections, because, as you know, the minister is also entitled to respond to interjections.

I will come to the question, but I think the hypocrisy of the Greens is clearly on display. They believe the standing orders should be used to protect them, but not anybody else, nor any other standard in the chamber. We all see that, Senator Shoebridge. You dish it out, but you can't—

Senator Shoebridge.

President, I've been sitting here in silence waiting for an answer, and you know that what we got from the minister is not relevant.

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. The minister had just stood up. I'm listening, and I'm sure she is going to come to your question. Thank you for listening.

We are committed to AUKUS because we believe it is an important contribution to strategic balance in the region, and that matters to Australia. It matters to the peace, prosperity and stability of the region. We are invested in AUKUS because we believe that hard deterrence is an important part of preserving stability, alongside the reassurance that can be provided through engagement and diplomacy. So everything we do—whether it is through the AUKUS partnership, our engagement with ASEAN and the East Asia Summit, our alliance with the United States, our special strategic partnership with Japan, our deep friendship and cooperation with the Republic of Korea, our work with India, our work through the Quad or our work in the Pacific—is all about stability and peace in our region. (Time expired)

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Minister, we've been told time and time again by Labor that AUKUS is based on shared values with the United States. How do we share values with the United States under Donald Trump that has withdrawn funding from UNESCO for alleged divisive, social and cultural causes, pulled out of the Paris agreement on climate and caused chaos with its traditional defence and trade partners around the world? How do we share values with that regime?

AUKUS is about Australia's interests. It's about Australia's interests. It's about what are our interests in an era that is increasingly complex and contested. It is a capability that goes to Australia's interests, and I would argue that it is a partnership in all three countries' interests. We are very clear. We make decisions in Australia's national interest, and that includes working with others. That is what AUKUS is, but that is not the sum of all that we do. Senator, you have made your views on AUKUS very clear. You are opposed to it. You are entitled to that.

A point of order: could I please request that answers be directed through the chair?

Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne. I will remind the minister to—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order! Minister Wong, direct your responses to me.

The Australian Greens political party have made it clear that they have double standards when it comes to standing orders in this place. They want standing orders for them, but they are not prepared to respect them for others or for the rest of the chamber. We all know that. Here we go again!

A point of order on relevance: it's obviously easier to uphold standing orders than it is international law in relation to Gaza.

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Order! Order! I cautioned the chamber earlier about making a point of view, not a political statement, or not adding to the question yourself. I'm not sure if you were here during the moment I said that, Senator Whish-Wilson, but it does apply to you. Political points are not points of order.

Our decision to continue to invest in AUKUS is about Australia's national interest, and we stand by it.

Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

Minister, this government has refused to call out Donald Trump on his extreme proposals for Gaza and his illegal unilateral bombing of Iran and has now given into the US on beef imports. Is this all just a play to keep the disastrous AUKUS deal on life support?

There are three erroneous statements in that question, at least. I'll go to the third one. In relation to beef, I would make the point that we have gone through a rigorous, science based, risk based assessment over the last decade. The process for this was in fact commenced under the coalition government. The announcement does allow for expanded access to include beef sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico which is legally imported and slaughtered in the United States. The decision is consistent with what we said all along: we will not compromise on biosecurity. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is satisfied that the strengthened control methods put in place by the US effectively manage biosecurity risks. We stand for open and fair trade, and Australia's cattle industry has benefited from this. (Time expired)

My question is to our fabulous minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. We know the Albanese Labor government was re-elected with a mandate to deliver jobs in remote communities. Can the minister outline the work being undertaken to deliver on that commitment?

What a wonderful answer I have! I certainly thank the senator for her question—her first from our government benches. I know that the Labor Party has gained a fierce advocate for First Nations people, and I certainly welcome Senator Cox to the team.

When I took on the role of minister just over 12 months ago, I made my priority clear—jobs, jobs, jobs. From Galiwin'ku to Kununurra and from Ceduna to Aurukun—and you're very welcome to travel with me, Senator Liddle—First Nations Australians want employment; they want economic empowerment.

But we know the reality of the job market in remote Australia means government assistance is necessary, and that's why we've developed our $707 million Remote Jobs and Economic Development, or RJED, program. We are in the process of creating 3,000 jobs. These jobs provide the dignity of real work with proper pay and conditions, because First Nations people deserve nothing less. Round 1 of RJED was finalised earlier this year and has resulted in the funding of 650 jobs with 100 different employers, and that builds on the 280 jobs created in the New Jobs Program Trial, which has been transitioned to this program. The second round received over 400 applications from employers wanting to create jobs, many seeking to fill multiple positions. The outcome of round 2 is being communicated to applicants as we speak. Successful applicants will be able to hire local people in their communities to work in jobs they want to do, with fair wages and conditions, including superannuation and annual leave. We are getting on with delivering on our election commitments.

Senator Cox, first supplementary?

Minister, can you outline the benefits of employment for remote communities and the importance of dignity of work? How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring the program is flexible and responsive to the diversity of these communities and their needs?

The senator is right. As someone who visits remote communities throughout the year, I can tell you that there are different needs and aspirations in desert country and sea country. There are different potential industries based on the landscapes, the weather or access to resources. Key to this commitment is flexibility. This program is funding job creation in tourism, agriculture, media, community services, maintenance, culture and the arts. I was able to start a radio station in Borroloola, my hometown, under the former CDEP program. That program was abolished by the coalition. It's why, in Kununurra, I was encouraged to meet Nathalia who's now working for Waringarri Radio, in the East Kimberley, and who's got a job thanks to our new program. This government is building a strong future for people like Nathalia and for our remote communities.

Senator Cox, second supplementary?

That's fabulous work there, Minister. The Albanese government prioritises employment opportunities, ensuring all Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn. Can the minister explain how this is reflected in the new scheme? How do programs she's outlined differ from the government's CDP scheme, and why has the Albanese Labor government changed that approach?

Opposition senators interjecting—

These guys do not like to be happy, President! They don't want people to be happy. The contrast between that side and this side is we want to see people with dignity in work. We believe in that. You believe in income management and punitive work-for-the-dole practices. So when you abolished the CDEP, you ran a wrecking ball through communities—you did, right across communities—and we are still trying to fix the mess from that period. We are working much more closely with our communities in regional and remote areas than you did.

Senator Price, I haven't seen you in any of these communities, so you wouldn't know what's going on out there! So out of the ashes of the coalition's mess we are building a program that will provide opportunities for and empower First Nations people. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. The issue of child care has been a topic of national debate in recent weeks. The safety of children is very important to us all. What has received less attention is the effect that having a child today actually has on parents. Many parents want to be able to raise their kids at home, but economic realities mean they are forced to enrol their children in early childhood education centres—if they can find an available centre. With rising mortgages, utilities and other cost-of-living factors, how is this government supporting parents to stay at home, if they choose to, with their kids?

This week is the first meeting of this parliament during which paid parental leave has gone up to 24 weeks. We understand that families want to spend more time with their children when they're babies. This was a great Labor reform that started under the Rudd-Gillard government, when paid parental leave was introduced for the first time. It was capped at 18 weeks. It sat there, at 18 weeks, for about 10 years under those opposite. When we returned to government, we brought paid parental leave up to 24 weeks, starting in July, and it will go up to 26 weeks next year.

We understand that families—mums and dads—want to spend more time at home with their new babies. We also understand, Senator Payman, that the reality of modern families is that often both parents need to work. They need to go back to work to support themselves and their families, and quality, affordable early education is absolutely critical for that. It's critical for mums who want to go back to work. It's critical for families, to help them pay their bills. It's critical for mums and dads to participate in the labour market.

Of course, there are also huge benefits for children in accessing quality early childhood education, Senator Payman. We know that it's a game changer for young children to participate in quality early learning that sets them up for school and for life.

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

Minister Clare has said that there are overwhelmingly higher levels of quality care at not-for-profit childcare centres. Despite this, 90 per cent of childcare centres are run for profit, and many of these have been found to be deficient in recent times. We want quality care. We want our children not to be neglected and for their nutrition to be intact. What actions is the government taking to encourage and support not-for-profit care?

It's right that two-thirds of early childhood education is provided by for-profit providers in Australia today. I want to reassure families that the vast majority of those providers are meeting and exceeding our national quality standards. We are concerned in this discussion about safety and quality, about a small minority of providers who we believe are putting profit ahead of child safety. That is exactly why we have a bill before the parliament right now to allow us to withdraw Commonwealth childcare subsidies from those providers who put profit ahead of safety. More broadly, this government wants to see more quality not-for-profit early learning. That's why we have a billion-dollar fund to invest in just that.

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

I appreciate what you're doing, Minister. Last year, the Productivity Commission completed its review of early childhood education and care. The report contained many recommendations, including a review of the National Quality Framework. Will the government implement this recommendation and review the National Quality Framework, given its concern, before putting the legislation before the Senate next week?

Thank you very much, Senator Payman. The National Quality Framework is considered to be world leading. The question that we have ahead of us at the moment is whether providers are following the National Quality Framework. We think the standards are strong, but we can see that enforcement needs to be better. That's why we're working shoulder to shoulder with the states and territories on a strong and significant package of reform. Those reforms include the first nationwide register of early childhood educators and also mandatory child-safe training across providers and educators to give everyone in our early learning settings the tools to help keep children safe and to give parents the confidence that their children are safe.

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. With respect to your government's decision to bail out the Whyalla smelter and, more recently, the Nyrstar smelters in Port Pirie and Hobart, why have you left workers at the Mount Isa copper smelter and Townsville refinery high and dry when the clock is ticking?

Thanks, Senator McDonald, for that question. I'll make a few points about the two enterprises that you referred to and I will come to, of course, that very important facility at Mount Isa that is currently run by Glencore. That is, of course, an important venture itself, but there are a series of other very significant industrial ventures that rely upon the Mount Isa Mines copper facility that is run by Glencore.

In terms of the Whyalla intervention that you referred to, it is very important that corporate Australia learns the right lesson from the Whyalla intervention. It is a very significant intervention—not just by the Commonwealth government. It's led by two governments: the South Australian government—under Peter Malinauskas, that very fine premier of South Australia—and the Albanese Labor government. The outcome of that intervention is that Australian steelmaking capability is protected and the corporate entity that ran that facility—'ran' being a generous term—now no longer operates that facility.

In terms of the progress that this government is making in relation to others smelters around the country, there have been no announcements in relation to Nyrstar. We are working very closely with that firm—focused on the national interest, focused on the economic and social benefits but, in particular, focused on the strategic benefits, particularly around critical minerals production in Australia. (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Given the gravity of the situations in Mount Isa and Townsville, will the federal government follow the Queensland government in putting forward a proposal to secure the future of the smelter, the refinery and, importantly, the thousands of jobs that are now at risk?

I'm glad that you refer to the Queensland government, Senator McDonald. This government is working very closely with the Crisafulli government and Minister Dale Last. I just got off the phone with him a minute ago, actually. He's a very fine fella. I travelled recently, after meeting with Premier Crisafulli and with Minister Last, to Mount Isa to meet with Glencore and to meet with the mayor and community representatives in Mount Isa. We are very focused not on pointing fingers at state governments but on working in cooperation with state governments. They have been very engaged with Glencore.

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

It's reported that you'll be meeting with Glencore today. How many times have you met with Glencore before today's meeting?

I'll come back to you if this is wrong, but at least twice—perhaps more than that. I did meet with representatives of Glencore again today. I have been closely coordinating with colleagues in the Queensland government about the approach the Queensland government has taken to that set of issues, and engaging, as you would expect, over a facility that is of this importance. I have no trouble with timekeeping, Senator McDonald. I'm very conscious of the importance of that facility for Mount Isa, for the region, for the copper industry, for the facilities that rely upon it and for the Queensland economy in Australia's broader strategic and economic resilience national interest.

My question is to Minister Watt, representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. In July the Australian Skills Quality Authority issued notices cancelling the qualifications of more than 4,200 foreign students, who were largely studying aged care and early childhood, after their education provider, SPES Education Pty Ltd, was deregistered for running a cash-for-diplomas operation scheme. In 2024, 23,000 foreign students were caught purchasing their qualifications, which is a breach of condition 8202, applying to all class 500 student visa holders. In short, these foreign students are in breach of their visas. Minister, will you cancel the visas of these 23,000 students and any others who cheated when purchasing their qualification?

Thank you, Senator Roberts. While I understand you prefer to ask these types of questions through the frame of migration, the matters you are asking about probably fit more within the responsibilities of the Minister for Skills and Training, Minister Giles, but I do represent him here, so I can still answer that question.

We are very proud of the fact that we have reformed the compliance measures around international education to weed out the shonks who had been running international education operations and proliferated under the former coalition government. The international training system that was left behind by the Murrison government was not just a joke; it was crooked. We had shonks and crooks unfortunately running these sorts of operations, exploiting international students who were here, taking money off them and providing them with dodgy qualifications that weren't fit for the kind of work they went on to do. So we are proud of those reforms.

As you say, Senator Roberts, it has resulted in thousands of qualifications being cancelled, as they should have been, because in some cases people were being awarded qualifications without doing any training or any study whatsoever; basically, you paid for a qualification and you got it. That's not how the system should work. It's how the system worked under the former coalition government, but it's not how the system works under this Labor government. Again, we make no apology for taking back the qualifications of people, so-called students, who have obtained qualifications through those means, and we make absolutely no apology for going after the shonks who were running those kinds of organisations. They have no place in our system. They actually tarnish Australia's reputation as a provider of international education, and we will continue to go after them.

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Under both Australian and Queensland law, a person who obtains a job using a faked qualification has committed two offences: using deception and forgery to obtain a financial advantage. Both carry a penalty of seven years in jail. This is not just a foreign student breaching their student visa conditions; this is serious criminal behaviour. Minister, have you brought in so many foreign students and so many new arrivals that you have lost the ability to police clear-cut federal law?

Minister Wong?

President, I would ask you to consider whether that question is in order, given that it appears to go to a question about criminal provisions or offences under state legislation that clearly can't be in the portfolio responsibilities the minister is representing.

My question goes to the quality of immigrants that are being allowed into this country and turning out to be criminals.

Senator Roberts, you also referred to the qualifications or the penalties in the Queensland and Australian jurisdictions.

President, speaking on the point of order, it is a fact that the Australian immigration legislation does cross-refer to state criminal legislation with respect to calibrating what is serious or not-so-serious criminal conduct. I just provide that for your assistance.

In response to your point of order, Senator Wong, the minister can answer the question to the extent that it goes to his portfolio or portfolios, his areas, but I do remind everyone in the chamber that it doesn't go to legal opinion.

Senator Roberts, I think we're all used to you and other One Nation senators asking questions that involve pejorative statements towards migrants, and it would appear that that is the intention for this term as well. How you decide to use your questions is a matter for you.

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts.

An unfounded imputation, President. I happen to be an immigrant.

There is no need for the added piece. Senator Roberts, the minister was describing the language with which a question was asked, so it doesn't go to imputation.

To answer your question, Senator Roberts, as I say, when the issue of fraudulent qualifications came to light, we took action. I was a little bit involved in this in my previous portfolio, and my recollection is that a very thorough search was done with employers who may have been employing the people involved. I will come back to you if this is wrong, but my recollection is that there was not very much evidence, if any at all, that people were being employed using those qualifications. As I say, if that's wrong, I will come back to you. We do take this matter seriously, and we will keep acting against it.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Foreign students can now bring family members with them, a prize for which many are clearly prepared to break the law. Deporting 27,200 crooked students and the thousands of family members they brought with them will free up thousands of homes and help ease the housing crisis and record homelessness that your government has caused through catastrophically high immigration. Minister, isn't it time we freed up homes for Australians who deserve them ahead of continuing to import criminals?

Minister Wong?

President, I would ask you to consider whether the use of that adjective, which I would prefer not to repeat, about the students in that question is in order, because it suggests all—I think it was a few hundred thousand—are in fact contravening or on the wrong side of the law or whatever. I do wonder if that's an appropriate inclusion in a question to a minister in this place.

Senator Roberts?

Senator Watt has already admitted that shonks are being weeded out. We want to get rid of them—out of the country.

Senator Roberts, the minister was referring to providers of education. Minister Wong?

On the point of order, the fact that some people may have breached the law does not make an entire cohort in breach of the law. That was the implication. It was a clear statement in the question.

Senator Roberts?

We know 27,000—

Senator Roberts, you are not in a debate here. You either have a legitimate question or you haven't. I am going to seek the advice of the Clerk.

Senator Roberts, we are not in the committee stage. This is question time. You ask your question. It gets ruled in or out of order if a point of order is raised. But you are not in a debate, and you are clearly not in a debate with me. Senator Roberts and Minister Wong, as is my usual practice, I am happy to review the language, but I would remind all senators that language used in questions is ultimately their responsibility and ultimately a reflection on them if there is some offence. So I will call Minister Watt.

Thanks, Senator Roberts. There are a number of assumptions in your question. One of them is that those students who obtained fraudulent qualifications were working in the occupation that that qualification was for. As I said, I am checking my records as to that situation, but I don't think you should necessarily make that assumption. It is one thing for someone to obtain a fraudulent qualification, and that is wrong. As I said, we have taken action on that against the students by cancelling their qualifications. Also, we have taken action against some of those shonky providers. But it's quite possible that those students may have obtained a qualification in a certain area but have been working in a completely different occupation. My recollection is that that is what the case was for those students, but I'm checking that matter. As I said, if I have heard anything further to add to that then I will advise the chamber.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government's first-term economic agenda focused on budget repair, providing targeted cost-of-living relief to support Australians while reducing inflation and getting wages moving again. The Treasurer has spoken about the decades-long productivity challenge facing Australia and other developed countries around the world. What are the priorities for this government in its second term, and how will it continue to use the budget to support Australians?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the question. It is an important question. As outlined in that question, our focus was on budget repair in the last term, providing cost-of-living help in targeted ways that didn't add to the inflation challenge and getting wages moving again. It was all part of our economic plan. I am really pleased to update the Senate that for the final budget outcome for the 2024-25 year we are forecasting a deficit in the low double digits, which is around half of what we expected at budget time and about a quarter of what we inherited from those opposite when we came to government, showing our significant budget repair work is continuing to pay dividends. That means that we have been able to find room to help families and households with those cost-of-living pressures. As the Treasurer has also said, productivity growth is well known to be a challenge facing Australia and indeed other economies. Our productivity problem hasn't been with us for a couple of years; it's been with us for a couple of decades.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I can hear those opposite interjecting, so I'll take that. It's important that they accept that the coalition oversaw the worst decade of productivity growth in more than 60 years. We are having to deal with that challenge that they didn't deal with when they were in government.

The 2022 election coincided with the largest quarterly fall in productivity growth in almost half a century, another feature of the Morrison government at that time. Over the decade to 2020, our average annual labour productivity growth in Australia was the slowest in 60 years, falling to just 1.1 per cent compared to 1.8 per cent over the 60 years to 2019-20. We have— (Time expired)

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?

Thank you for that answer and for your hard work in the significant budget repair that you've just started to outline for us. The Treasurer has made clear that driving productivity is a clear focus of the second term of the Albanese Labor government. This will be a collective effort across the economy, between government, business, the community sector and worker representatives. What is the government's plan to bring these groups together and lead an effort to boost productivity in our economy?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the supplementary. We have a five-pillar productivity agenda, which is also being reported on by the Productivity Commission, around creating a more dynamic and resilient economy; investing in the net zero transformation—something that those opposite still don't accept—building a skilled and adaptable workforce; harnessing data and digital technology; and delivering quality care more efficiently.

The Economic Reform Roundtable will take place from 19 to 21 August here in Parliament House. It will bring all parties together to build a consensus approach to improving productivity, enhancing economic resilience and strengthening budget sustainability. We on this side of the chamber do want and welcome a frank conversation about the future of our economy. We want real talk about real reforms that will deliver real improvements to living standards and to the budget. We're looking for cooperation and consensus over conflict, and ideas over ideology. (Time expired)

Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Could you explain a bit further why it is important for the government to lead this discussion, and how are the many interested voices in this discussion being heard?

I think Senator Darmanin for the supplementary. The government accept that we can't solve this problem alone; this will require a collective effort across the economy between government, business, the community sector and unions. In a show of good faith, we've also invited the coalition to attend because we are making a genuine attempt to find common ground and not to reprosecute the policy differences and arguments of the past. I've seen some being optimistic about their attendance. Others are ridiculing it and calling it a talkfest. I really do hope that their representative from the other place does attend and take the opportunity to engage cooperatively in those discussions. The government is looking forward to those discussions. There is much more to do, and we want to work with all of those: unions, community sector, government and business.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave granted.

I speak today as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman. We are known as li-Anthawirriyarra, which means our spiritual origin comes from the sea country and we talk from the heart. I also speak today as a proud First Nations member of this parliament, on behalf of and alongside my colleagues Senator Jana Stewart; Senator Dorinda Cox; Special Envoy Marion Scrymgour; the member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid; and the member for Leichhardt, Matt Smith. I speak today as a visitor to Ngunnawal country, welcomed beautifully this week by Aunty Violet Sheridan. I speak to the Senate about respect.

This week, the first week of the 48th Parliament, we've seen deliberate acts of disrespect in the Senate from One Nation senators. We've seen those senators come into the chamber for the acknowledgement of country, a longstanding part of the Senate Order of Business, purely to pull an incredibly childish and very hurtful stunt of turning their backs on that proceeding. These senators aren't required to be in the Senate for the acknowledgement of country; in fact, they haven't attended in the past. But they do now. Whether it is for attention or for clickbait, whether it is to cause offence or to stoke division, these senators have made a deliberate decision to disrespect First Nations Australians.

You'd think they would have learnt lessons from the election. You'd think they would have heard the clear message from the Australian people in May. The politics of culture wars were rejected. The politics of disrespect and nastiness were rejected. The politics of punching down on First Nations people were rejected. We just had three years of people in this place trying to do the opposite of that—attacking welcomes to country, attacking acknowledgements of country, trash-talking First Nations communities and representatives and undermining efforts to show respect for First Nations Australians. The Australian people made their rejection of that division and cynicism very, very clear.

Our government is committed to a different way of operating. We listen to people and treat them with respect, even when we do not agree with them. We won't be swayed by the gales of divisive culture wars wherever it comes from. Our government knows that the key to our success regarding First Nations people, and on all issues, is an approach of respect, listening, and approaching with a mind open to the truths of the past. Our government doesn't attack First Nations Australians but recognises them. We see them. We hear them. Our government will continue to listen to the people, from Fitzroy to Fitzroy Crossing, who have been here for countless generations—the longest continuing culture on earth. Our government engages with First Nations peoples, seeks the benefit of their experiences to build on the success of this country as a whole. Our government acknowledges them and their dignity, and that's what an acknowledgement of country is about.

As the Prime Minister put it on Monday, it is a respectful way for us to begin our deliberations here in Canberra which, of course, means 'meeting place'. It is a reminder as well that, while we all belong here together, we are stronger together and we belong. What a welcome to country does is hold out, like a hand warmly and graciously extended, an opportunity for us to embrace and to show a profound love of home and country.

I urge those senators, in particular the new senators, to take a moment to think about how important it is and how precious it is to stand here as a senator in this Senate representing your state and, indeed, representing all Australians including First Nations people. Respect and acknowledgement go both ways. I urge all senators to remember who you work beside and who you walk with. Even when we disagree, we have a chamber here where we can discuss things in a manner that is far more respectful than we've seen in these previous days.

I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave granted.

Senator McCarthy and the other members of the First Nations caucus, as you call yourselves, I do understand and respect that you are asking for respect as Australians. All One Nation, and the rest of the Australian people, wants is the same respect back—that is, that we are still part of this nation, that we are people who are born here and people who have migrated here. We also want acknowledgement and respect of this nation. To be constantly told, 'This is not your land,' or 'Always was, always will be Aboriginal land,' you are disenfranchising me and many other Australians.

The welcome to country was not culture or tradition; it was actually introduced into Australia by Ernie Dingo in the seventies in relation to New Zealand having the haka. Welcome to country has not been a tradition of this parliament and was only introduced in the last few years. This is not a stunt that I've pulled just this week. I have turned my back on it for the past three years. I am acknowledging the Australian people who voted against the Voice. They don't want the division that is happening in our country. They are fed up with welcome to country. They want to see an end to it. People don't want to arrive on a plane in every state across this nation and get a welcome to country. They don't want this division.

We have seen land handed back. We've seen Australians stopped from going to certain places in this country because they are not welcome there. This is their land. They can't go to Mount Warning or the Grampians. They can't go to certain parts. They can't do the things that every Australian should be entitled to. We are treated totally different in many areas.

I understand the demise of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I've visited their communities. I've spoken to them. You haven't got the support of every Aboriginal for welcome to country. A lot of them out there have contacted me and said: 'We are over it as well. We don't want this division in our nation.' It's a stance that I've taken to speak up on behalf of those Australian people who don't want this division.

I don't want to have to do this, but the fact is that I am actually speaking up on behalf of the people who don't know how else to protest this. It's dividing us as a nation and as a people. I've said this right from the very beginning, when I came into parliament in 1996. My first statement was on equality for all Australians. But we're being treated totally differently. It doesn't whether it's education, jobs, welfare—whatever it is. There is no definition of Aboriginality. A lot of people claim to be an Aboriginal of this nation when they're not, because they can just say it. That needs to change.

As I've said before, and I will say it again, when you recognise and respect us and say that we accept you as our equals in this nation, that we are all Australians together—I never hear it. What protest do you hear when the Australian flag is burnt in protest? Why should that be allowed? That is not right. I've seen protests from Aboriginal people. I've seen the racism that has been thrown at me. I dare to raise issues and call for equality—so I'm supposedly the racist in this nation because I question things. That's not racism. Racism means that you believe your race to be superior to another. I have never ever indicated that at all. I question. All I have ever questioned is equality for all Australians, and I will stand by that.

I am the one who has gone to these communities and come back to see the minister for aboriginal affairs. I have advocated for jobs for the people at Uluru, Ayres Rock. I have advocated for housing up in North Queensland, at Bamaga. I have advocated for a lot of issues to do with Aboriginal people and the corruption that is going on within these communities—land councils and everything like that. I've advocated for these people. A lot of Aboriginals come to me— (Time expired)

I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave is granted.

Well it's a bit rich to get a lecture on First Nations culture from the likes of Senator Pauline Hanson. It's also a bit rich to get a lecture about not wanting division from the likes of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. She seems entirely blind to her own privilege. It is not welcomes to country and acknowledgements of country that are dividing this nation; it is racism.

I stand in support of the statement made by Senator McCarthy—eloquently spoken, as always—and I note that we stand here on Ngunnawal and Ngambri land, over which sovereignty was never ceded, and that we should all take pride in the longest continuing culture on the planet and that that is a source of strength for all of us. It enriches all Australians.

I am pleased that we have an acknowledgment of country incorporated into our morning parliamentary processes, and I want to acknowledge that it took many years of many good people pushing for that before this chamber, as a whole, agreed to do that. That was a moment that made us all bigger, and I am proud of that moment.

I am also pleased that, after the discussion of respect in this chamber yesterday, this issue of the Pauline Hanson's One Nation senators turning their backs on an acknowledgement has been raised in that context. I note that it's not a censure motion, but I acknowledge that it was a respectful contribution made by Senator Malarndirri McCarthy.

I would like to finish by saying that the Greens are looking forward to working on issues to genuinely close the gap and looking forward to working on issues of the over-incarceration of First Nations people and the continued shameful record of Aboriginal deaths in custody, over which a really important royal commission report was drafted and has, sadly, gathered dust for far too long.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

What concerns me, as an Indigenous Australian, as a member of this parliament, as to the issues that we are talking about right now, is the ideological way in which Indigenous Australians are objectified—and I mean, in such a way that we are used as a political token for political pointscoring. The idea of welcome to country has become exactly that.

Senator Hanson is correct to say that welcome to country is not traditional culture. It isn't. And what we do need to recognise is—and it is important for all of us, as leaders of this nation, to recognise—the reinvention of culture, which diminishes traditional culture.

For those who still live close to traditional culture, within cultural confines, their day-to-day lives are dictated by it. They speak their language. They are often spoken about in very romanticised terms. And the use of acknowledgements really does absolutely nothing to improve their lives and has done nothing to improve their lives.

To be quite honest, as a woman of Indigenous heritage but, first and foremost, as an Australian, I am absolutely done with the virtue signalling that takes place. I am of the belief that it is not necessary to have an acknowledgement, because we are all Australians. Every single one of us—including the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri—is Australian. We are here to serve all Australians equally in this country, not to praise or acknowledge one group above others. Truly, I don't think you really want to acknowledge my existence because of my indigeneity more than anybody else's. I am equal to you and to everybody else here and to everybody in this country.

So this is the main issue at heart. It's not standing up as a person of Indigenous heritage to say how we do things differently. We are people; we are human beings. We need to stop the infantilisation of who we are as a group of people, as though we're somehow different. We are not different. We are the same. We are Australian. And that is the sentiment that we need more of in this chamber, in this building and more broadly across this country, because it's no wonder our children are afraid to be proud to call themselves Australian.

I understand the significance of the conduct of One Nation, perhaps towards the chamber, towards the President. I acknowledge that. But, more broadly, when it comes to this concept of acknowledgment of country—'First Nations' isn't even Australian terminology, for crying out loud! It's been adopted from Canada, from America. It's just reinvention, which is actually belittling and watering down traditional culture and what it's really about.

But we can ignore traditional culture in this chamber—there are elements of it that every single one of you across from me ignore—because it's detrimental to the most marginalised in remote communities. If you speak up against it, if you mention it, you are painted as a racist or somebody who is a coconut or somebody who is a traitor. Imagine if we treated every single racial group in this manner in this country—it's horrendous.

It begins with virtue signalling—the politicisation of a group of people in this country, because of our racial heritage. And I'm sick to death of it, as a woman, as a mother, as a soon-to-be grandmother and as an Australian of proud heritage, whether it's my convict ancestors or my Warlpiri ancestors. I'm proud of it all, and we should all be. We should all encourage that in Australia in 2025.

by leave—Senator Hanson speaks of division, but it is she who peddles division. Senator Hanson speaks of respect, but it is she who peddles disrespect. Senator Hanson, I listened carefully to what you had to say, and I would say this to you: you do not have to agree with the tradition of acknowledging country. I disagree with you—I think the majority of the chamber disagrees with you—but you do not have to agree with it. But it is part of the rituals and traditions of this chamber, and, as a senator, I think you should respect it. I think you should respect it.

Now, I also listened to the contribution just gone, and, I have to say, I was heartened to see the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Ley, attend the welcome to country at the opening of the parliament and state, at that opening, her respect and appreciation for Aunty Violet's welcome. Ms Ley said this:

May it set the tone as we recommit ourselves to the taking of practical action to improve lives and expand opportunities for Indigenous Australians in every part of our great country.

I would hope that the opposition would reflect on the words of their own leader in relation to welcomes to country.

There's been a lot said about what this chamber is, what this house is. It is a house for all Australians. It is. And it is a house that represents our history and our multicultural diversity, as well as the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the oldest in the world. I would end on this: decency and respect cost us nothing, but they go a long way to building a sense of unity. And, if you want to see what grace and respect look like, perhaps remember what Senator McCarthy said just a few moments ago. I don't intend to grant leave for any further statements, given the number—

Then I will ask for it and it can be denied. I seek leave to make a short statement no longer than Senator Wong's.

Leave granted.

With all due respect, I did not want to make a statement in this place. I actually thought Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price each expressed their opinion in relation to this matter well. Their tone respected the chamber. Their words did not seek to diminish anybody else. Their opinions were heartfelt, and they were their opinions. Each person is allowed to come into this chamber and hold an opinion. The turning of the back—I've spoken to Pauline Hanson about that; she knows my opinion. She accepts what I have said in relation to that. But let me tell you Senator Hanson has every right to hold her opinion in relation to what happens at the beginning of this chamber, and she is right. She is right. When I first came to this place, it was prayers; it was not a welcome to country. But I can tell you: do not ever demean anybody. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price—her mother's story; Bess Price. I suggest you all read it. A woman walking through the desert was her mother, who had her baby between her legs under a tree. She picked up her baby, she cut the umbilical cord and she kept walking. I suggest you read the story of Bess Price before you ever come in here and cast aspersions or tell us, Senator Wong, to respect other words. I will stand by and respect Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who every day has lived and breathed reconciliation in this country. Her father is white; her mother is black. So please don't ever come into this place again and pontificate to us like you've just done.

Thank you, senators. If there are no other contributions, I intend to move on.

After that hiatus, I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.

Of course, there is plenty to talk about. We asked for answers in relation to a range of issues, all of which are central to the country today—child care, housing and the imminent unrealised capital gains tax among others. It caused me to pause and reflect upon the state of the nation as it generally stands. It seems almost inconceivable to me that a country as rich and as prosperous as Australia could be reduced to what it is today, such that we would have to sit here and ask questions in relation to those key issues, given the fact that we are talking about hundreds of thousands, now millions, of Australians who are homeless because of the reckless nature of the government's policies regarding immigration and housing.

We've got a crippled energy market, we've got a decimated manufacturing base, and we've got a developing culture of self-loathing leading to some of the most unaffordable, unachievable societal cohesion we have ever seen. It caused me this week, as we returned to parliament, to give consideration to, for the sake of people outside this building, of which there are something in the order of 27 million—half their luck!—and reflect upon how it has happened. What is it that we can reflect on in this building that shows that? I think you could mount a very strong case that this is actually happening, because this building, as we walk around and look at the inhabitants of it, is now in danger of becoming nothing more than a coffee spot for union heavies, for lobbyists and for bureaucrats, who seem to be populating the entire building. It becomes something of a kabuki theatre, in which the actors in this building simply mill around and play their part. The laws in this building, the laws that have created those crises, emanate as a result of a thought bubble that occurred somewhere in a foreign land in a conference or a think tank—the kind of meeting where you get well-dressed, well-coiffed bureaucrats talking on a panel, wearing a wireless mic, sitting around with crossed legs, answering questions and sharing ideas about what would make a great Australia and then booking meetings later on with the minister's people. Of course, the minister, when they come back and talk to them, isn't paying attention, because the ministers in this building are now preferring self-aggrandising, delivering keynotes, talking at think tanks, going to dinners and having puff pieces written about them.

This week we've seen the incredible spectacle—coming out of this side of the chamber exclusively, I would say—the invention of TikTok videos set to music, which has been an extraordinary development. There are a lot of dances coming out of your side of the chamber, Senator Wong.

I'm not on TikTok, mate. I wouldn't know.

That's much to your benefit! The reality here, though, is that this building is now populated by an incredible cast of characters. This building is like a great big party for the swamp, and no-one at home is invited. It's a party you're not invited to, because it's now completely, wholly owned by a different breed. You've got the career lefty politician person, who can't seem to walk around the building on his own. He's got to have two or three staff members behind him, talking about whatever busy work they're doing in the back room. This character, of course, made an impassioned speech 10 years ago about values and then forgot about them on the basis that we need to see the bigger picture.

You've got the journalists, who don't get away scott-free, congregating in groups around the building, holding microphones, asking really important beltway questions about really important beltway issues—captive to corporate interests though, mind you, and at the whim of their editors—loving to drop a yarn, but in fact they're just writing whatever is deemed suitable by their private equity ownership. They have got 'journalist' on their tag, but if you read the business card, it should probably say 'Labor media adviser in waiting'.

You've also got the lobbyists. You can see them milling around the building dominated by their orange lanyards. This is the lobbyist, sometimes known as the one-term MP, who told his family that he couldn't wait to get out of the building and now spends his days having coffees with MPs and reporting back to his board that he's influencing policy making.

The staffers don't get off scott-free. You see them walking around the building in pants exposing the ankles, with a rainbow lanyard. They can't seem to walk without a coffee in their hand, talking about whatever the minister wants or whatever Zohran Mamdani's mayoral campaign is looking like. And who can forget the career bureaucrats with more letters after their names than the alphabet? They went to ANU in '93 to study human rights law and ended up in the diversity, equity and inclusion department of one our intel agencies.

These are the cast of characters who are doing damage to this nation.

That was a little hard to follow. I don't feel like I'm having a party when I come here. For me, it's more about doing the hard work of this government. It's no joke, actually. The Albanese Labor government's first economic term—in particular, I want to talk about tax policy, budget repair and targeted cost-of-living relief to support Australians while reducing inflation and getting wages moving again—is hardly something to joke about. I think people on this side of the chamber have not had a party when they have been working really hard over the last three years in delivering those outcomes for Australians.

The Treasurer has spoken about the decades-long productivity challenge facing this country and other developed countries around the world, and the Treasurer has also made clear that driving productivity is a key focus of the second term of the Albanese Labor government. That's why the upcoming productivity roundtable that will be happening here in August will be an important part of the next stage of reforms that need to continue in this country, and it will be a collective effort across the economy between the government, business, the community sector and workers. It is important for the government to lead this discussion and to bring all of these parties together so that we can continue on the path of productivity improvements and improving the wellbeing of all Australians.

Coming more specifically to tax policy, we haven't changed our tax policies, and our economic plans are centred on Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn. We delivered three rounds of income tax cuts in our first term in parliament and we have made lots of progress in getting the budget in a much better position, but we need it to be even more sustainable at a time when global conditions are uncertain and when our economy needs to continue to be resilient.

While we showed in the first term that we could deliver budget surpluses despite all of these challenges, that we could engineer the biggest nominal turnaround in the budget in a single term in our history and that we could get Liberal debt down, there is obviously more that we need to do. We are very focused on doing that and on building a big agenda through the productivity roundtable and other economic and tax policy work to determine what our next steps will be.

Specifically, on the matter of the unrealised gains on superannuation balances—I could talk about this for a lot longer than the two minutes I have left. Labor are the party of superannuation, and this month we celebrated another milestone: 12 per cent compulsory superannuation paid to all workers' balances. This is the kind of thing we are focused on. We are focused on delivering secure, dignified retirement savings for the average worker in our economy. The increases delivered through the 12 per cent guarantee will mean that a worker aged 30 right now who is earning an average full-time income will have an extra $98,000 in retirement. That is significant. These are the kinds of reforms that we are delivering for real working people.

The fact is that our changes to better target superannuation concessions are modest, and they are being introduced in a methodical way that won't affect the vast majority of Australians—Australians like the worker who's aged 30 and earning an average income who will receive an extra $98,000 at retirement, thanks to our increase of the guarantee to 12 per cent. These changes will apply to only about half a per cent of people, those with more than $3 million in their superannuation balances. I don't actually know many people, if any at all, who have $3 million or more in their superannuation accounts. And they will still get generous tax concessions—just slightly less generous than the ones they get now.

Respected financial commentator Noel Whittaker has pointed out that, despite all the panic that's been peddled in some of the conservative newspapers around this taxing of unrealised gains, the reality is that super will still be a very attractive and concessional place to save for retirement, even when this modest measure is in place.

I also stand to take note of answers to all coalition questions. I'm going to start with the questions that my colleague Senator Duniam asked in relation to child care. This has been a very disturbing series of allegations over the recent period. As soon as they came to pass, our leader, Sussan Ley, came out and said that we would immediately work with the government and that we stood ready to work with the government on any changes required to strengthen protections for our children. In addition, our leader, Sussan Ley, wrote to the Prime Minister to reiterate that to which she had spoken, and that is really important. We are here to work with the government to ensure that we can protect our children in any way that we can. We are grateful to the government for the work that they have already done in this space.

The bill that was referenced relates to funding arrangements being able to be withdrawn from operators that do not do the right thing. That is a good thing, but it doesn't go far enough. Our questions related to timelines for what states and territories needed to do in order to ensure that protections were strengthened for children. We didn't receive an answer in relation to those timelines. As I said, we are supportive of the laws in relation to funding, but that is only a part of the issue that needs to be addressed. We need to look at the work that the states and territories will be doing, because they are the regulators. The balance of that work needs to be done without delay, and we need to understand when that will happen.

The government is the leader in relation to driving these reforms. They are the ones that can make this happen. They are the ones that can set the deadlines and ensure that states and territories meet those deadlines. Parents expect them to do that. Parents expect them to do that expeditiously, and they expect them to do it now—not in a few weeks or months. That is a fair and reasonable expectation, given the nature and depravity of the allegations that we have heard.

We have such a breakdown between the individual states and territories when it comes to information sharing. We should ensure that no individual who has been sacked from any childcare centre, or from any environment where they are working with children, should ever be able to get any kind of employment in another childcare centre or another environment where they are accessing or working with children. That should never be allowed. If somebody has been terminated on the basis of their conduct, then why should we expose other children and other families to them?

We need to act on this very quickly, and we need the government to explain why there hasn't been a deadline set for this. That is a very fair and reasonable expectation from us as an opposition not only in dealing with this matter constructively but also in highlighting a criticism of a delay that perhaps shouldn't be there. We have breakdowns between government departments at the state and territory level. That also needs to be dealt with. It needs to be addressed urgently. There is bipartisan support to get these things done. We are here to help you do that. We just need you to show the leadership that is needed in order to get this done expeditiously, because our children deserve that.

I don't think any of us in this place ever wanted to hear of the type of allegations that we have heard in the past few weeks. It has distressed all of us. And the people outside this building—the people who we represent—expect us to act in a manner that is clear-minded and efficient and that ensures that these kinds of things can never happen in our country again. We need to ensure that we deliver on that expectation.

I rise to take note of the government's answers to opposition questions. The first issue I want to address—and I want to thank Senator Kovacic for her contribution just then; I think it is above politics—is the conversation around early childhood centres and education. I think Minister Walsh was very clear in trying to articulate, during the questions from Senator Duniam in question time, the process in which the government will undertake to seek that urgency to ensure that the reforms are established.

We share your concern and, as Minister Walsh said, also welcome your bipartisanship in working with the government to ensure that this important and urgent work is done. We will consider the different facets of that, and the minister already committed to a scheduled urgent meeting in her response to today's question about this.

As a working mother of two daughters who has used day care and child care for my own children, of course it was upsetting to hear the reports. Led by Jason Clare, our education minister from the other place, Labor are looking at important reforms that stretch across an important workforce, one that is particularly represented by low-paid workers and by women, and are working through what a national child safety package looks like in relation to urgent reform for our children. And I'm glad that we share, across the aisle, the concern in relation to how we will get this job done.

I can assure you that the Albanese Labor government believe that every child in Australia deserves quality, safe and affordable early education. That is at the heart of the work that our education minister and our assistant minister will undertake in order to ensure that that happens. We see the value in ensuring that women—and it is women who shoulder the burden in this—are supported in getting back into the workforce. Of course, we want to make sure that, when you drop your children off to an early childhood care provider, there are guardrails in place, essentially using the Commonwealth levers that exist to make sure there are regulations in place for quality and safety when they are the domain of states and territories. That's some important work that the Albanese Labor government will do through its childcare subsidy funding. I look forward to having conversations with the opposition and continuing that bipartisan support for that work.

I also quickly want to touch on the question asked of Minister Ayres by Senator McDonald, in relation to the closure of smelters and what the Albanese Labor government are doing in relation to our strategic and considered approach to our minerals- and metals-processing sectors—making sure that we are strengthening our economic resilience and our national security. We will build a future where Australia adds value to our resources, strengthens our supply chains and secures well-paid, stable blue-collar jobs. Each smelter obviously faces distinct changes, and I think that Minister Ayres was very clear in his response today about the way in which the Albanese Labor government will work through that. Those challenges are quite significant. Those challenges are about working with state and territory governments, industry leaders, unions and affected communities nationwide. It is our priority, in order to secure the sectors' long-term viability in the national interest, to put all of those pieces together, and it is the work that Minister Ayres, within his portfolio, will do. (Time expired)

I think all of North Queensland should be very concerned after the nonanswers we heard today from the Minister for Industry and Innovation. He was asked a very specific question by the shadow minister for resources, Senator McDonald, about the government's plan to help save the 17,000 jobs in North Queensland that rely on the Townsville copper refinery and the Mount Isa copper smelter. The minister gave no answers. The Queensland government has put forward a proposal—and I recognise that Glencore has said that the Queensland government's proposal is not adequate to save these jobs—but this should be a partnership between the state and federal governments. As we heard—or didn't hear, as it is—from the minister for industry, the federal government has proposed no plan, no tangible action whatsoever, to help save these jobs.

The questions that have to be asked are: What has the government been doing apart from congratulating itself on its election victory and saving its own jobs a few months ago? What is it doing to help save these jobs? It is also very concerning that the minister failed to outline exactly what problem is facing this industry and why these jobs are at risk. He probably doesn't want to do that, because it would be embarrassing for the government to admit their own faults. Thankfully, the Australian Workers' Union are not as shy as the minister. In a Facebook post on 8 July the Australian Workers' Union said:

Between skyrocketing energy prices, cheap dumping and tariff wars, smelters such as Nyrstar and Glencore Mt Isa are up against a wall.

It is very embarrassing for the government for one of its own unions that notionally support it to point out that skyrocketing energy prices are one of the reasons why these jobs are on the line. This government came to power promising lower energy prices. They promised that net zero would deliver a cheaper energy future. Instead, we have the circumstance three years after their initial election of thousands of jobs being put at risk in this country because the government has failed on its promises. It has failed to run a functioning energy market in this country. It used to actually pay taxes and generate profits and wealth for our country, but now it's having to come to state and federal governments with its hands out for a taxpayer bailout to keep these jobs.

The first thing we need from this government is a plan to save these jobs. The second thing we need is an admission of guilt and fault. The only way you're going to fix your problem is to first admit that you've got one, and we've got a big one with this government and the skyrocketing energy prices we are all living with.

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 I asked today relating to international students.

I asked: has the government lost control of student visa holders? The Australian public have had enough of the government pretending immigration is fine. So many people are entering that the government has lost control. Foreign students are now allowed to bring in spouses, de facto partners and children under 18 who attend state schools and contribute to overcrowding. Spouses can work 24 hours a week, or, if the student is a postgraduate, they can work full time with no restrictions. Buying a first degree and coming in as a graduate student opens the door to a financial windfall and helps to explain how foreign visa holders were able to last year send $15 billion home to their families—money that leaves Australia forever, making our economy and our people poorer.

In the last two years, the early education graduate diploma at the Southern Cross University has had 6,000 enrolments. The ABC reports that courses like this are being used as permanent residency pathways, with courses dumbed down to keep the gravy train going. There are confirmed issues around graduates not speaking English and not understanding child protection policies, safe sleep or even hygiene. There are 1.1 million foreign students and their families currently in Australia.

One Nation will deport every visa holder who is breaching their visa, a figure close to 100,000 when the number of dishonest foreign students is included. We will introduce an eight-year waiting period for social security benefits, including Medicare, and we will cancel the visa for spouses and siblings to accompany students entirely. In the age of online learning, there is no need for a student with children to come to Australia in person. The Albanese government's student visa rort is selling out young Australians, causing record homelessness. We will free up tens of thousands of houses for young Australians, who, thanks to the government, currently face the worst housing crisis and the worst housing market in Australian history. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to AUKUS.

It was pretty remarkable that, once again, when questions were put squarely to the Albanese government about why they're doubling down on Donald Trump, why it doesn't matter how offensive his policies are—pulling out of UNESCO, breaching international law to unilaterally bomb Iran, attacking and punching down on minorities within the United States or aggressively attacking former allies and partners on trade or threatening them with military invasion—why it does not matter what Donald Trump does with his extreme regime there in Washington, the Albanese Labor government backs them in. Worse than that, it keeps shovelling them hundreds of million of dollars. It has now given them $1.6 billion, handed over literally in part; $800 million was taken over and literally handed to Donald Trump's team by Richard Marles. It's the obvious tribute payment that the Albanese government thinks it has to make to Donald Trump.

They want to keep AUKUS on life support. They probably realistically know—I give the Albanese government credit that they have enough smarts to realise this—we'll never get a nuclear submarine. But, for some reason or other, they want to keep it on life support and keep leaning in to the increasingly extreme regime in Washington and refusing to criticise them. They're all connected, because the Albanese government are so desperate to keep AUKUS on life support that they cannot bring themselves to have the courage to criticise even the most gross excesses of the Trump regime.

So when I ask Minister Wong about how they can hand them $1.6 billion with no clawback and no returns for nuclear submarines they will never get, we get invasion and avoidance and she starts attacking the question rather than answering the question. What's really remarkable about Minister Wong's backing of Donald Trump, her backing of his extreme behaviour, and his breaches of international law is it's the same Penny Wong who joined with Anthony Albanese, before he was the prime minister—the same two people who, when they were not in the positions of power they are now, signed a joint letter attacking the United States for its unlawful war on Iraq. Before they were in positions of power and influence, they were able to stand up and say things like this:

The ALP firmly believes that international conflict should, wherever possible, be dealt with peacefully and through international co-operation under the auspices of the United Nations.

They talked about the illegal war in Iraq being a dangerous precedent, and now they're in power they double down on Trump—obscene! (Time expired)

I remind all senators that they should address people by their correct titles.

I join with my colleague to take note of the government's answers on AUKUS. AUKUS is a dud. It's a very expensive dud, and it's a dud no matter who is president in the US, but right now it puts us into alliance with a country lead by a frightening and undemocratic leader—an alliance where we pay and they run the show. It compromises our sovereignty in ways that are completely unacceptable. It was never subject to a genuine consultation with Australian citizens. Then there is the cost—so far, a down payment of $1.6 billion. We heard Senator Wong confirming there was no rollback, and it's running up to an incredible $376 billion down the track, with no guarantee of any submarine delivery.

I've had an enormous amount of correspondence on this issue from South Australians. South Australians don't like waste, and they value independence, including in defence. It is, therefore, no surprise that in a recent poll South Australians led the nation in believing that AUKUS would make us less safe. Across the nation, two-thirds of those Australians polled say that there should be a parliamentary inquiry. Well, why not? The US and the UK are all having inquiries. South Australia and Australian citizens want an inquiry here. The local council where AUKUS nuke submarines would be based, at Osborne, is opposed to what's down the track for them. We've heard, too many times in South Australia, the promise of unrealised jobs—promises that never actually arrive in anything like the numbers promised and that, if they did, would be the most expensive jobs on the planet.

We need a full inquiry, we need real experts who know what's going on. South Australians are extremely concerned, in particular about the disposal of nuclear waste. There's no solution, and we definitely reject the blocking of South Australian voices on nuclear— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Order! Earlier today the President informed the Senate that she has received letters from senators seeking appointment to the single crossbench position on the following committees: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

In accordance with the standing orders, a ballot will be held to determine which of the senators are to be appointed to the committees.

The bells being rung—

The Senate will now proceed to a ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed to senators, who are requested to tick the box next to the name of the candidate they wish to vote for in each committee. As the ballot paper is rather long, if you make a mistake just raise your hand and the clerks will collect the spoiled paper and issue you with another one. I invite Senator Allman-Payne, Senator David Pocock and Senator Roberts to act as scrutineers.

A ballot having been taken—

I inform the chamber that the results of the ballot will be announced at a later hour. The ballots, as you've just seen, will be counted outside the chamber, and there are three scrutineers appointed. So it's my intention now to move to the condolence motion.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 1 May 2025 of the Hon. Peter James Nixon AO, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Gippsland, Victoria, from 1961 to 1983, and I inform senators that Mr Nixon's family are in the gallery.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 1 May 2025, of the Honourable Peter James Nixon AO, former Minister for the Interior, Minister for Shipping and Transport, Postmaster General, Minister for Transport and Minister for Primary Industry, and former Member for Gippsland, 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 rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the death of former minister and member for Gippsland Peter James Nixon AO, and I want to begin by offering, on behalf of the government, our condolences to his family, friends and parliamentary colleagues. I want to also acknowledge his family here today: children Chris and Joanne, and her husband Peter, as well as his grandchildren Toby, Amanda and Katrina. You are welcome here.

Peter Nixon was a proud regional Australian, born in Orbost, Victoria, in 1928. As a young man he left his family farm to attend Wesley College in Melbourne. After completing his studies, and recovering from an unfortunate football injury, he went straight back to Gippsland to continue work on the family farm. A fourth-generation farmer, Peter eventually was joined on the farm by his wife, Jacqueline, and his three children, Joanne, Mark and Christopher.

It was this region of Gippsland that Peter Nixon would go on to represent in the other place from 1961. Elected at just 33 years old, he served as the Country and then National Party member for Gippsland for over two decades. Peter wasn't the initial candidate for preselection in the seat. He stepped up and put his name forward when the presumptive nominee sadly passed away just days before nominations closed. From then, he served as the member for Gippsland from 1961 until 1983 under five different prime ministers, dedicating an admirable 22 years of service to parliament and to his community. Under Prime Minister Harold Holt, Peter was appointed Minister for the Interior in 1967. His portfolio included a broad range of responsibilities, including immigration, railways, and public works and services. A news article from that time quoted public servants from the department who said that Peter was the most down-to-earth politician they'd ever worked with. Many colleagues shared that same view throughout his many years of service.

Peter entered cabinet as Minister for Shipping and Transport in the McMahon government in 1971. He later served as Minister for Primary Industry and Postmaster-General. He made significant contributions in his ministerial career, including negotiating with British Airways to provide more flights into Australia. He also pioneered many initiatives that provided support to farmers during periods of drought that threatened their livelihoods. From his first day in parliament and into his ministerial career, Peter was a tireless advocate for farmers and for the regions. An extract from his first speech reveals just that. He said:

…it is as a farmer that I, a newcomer to this House, would like to direct attention to the fears that are in the minds of farmers, not only in my electorate but generally throughout the nation.

Peter's primary commitment was always to the people of Gippsland. Indeed, he once turned down an invitation to attend a dinner with the Queen during an Australian visit, opting instead to participate in a local sporting club event in his community. Peter's view was: if he were invited as the member for Gippsland, he would be there for his constituents. He was also known to enjoy a friendly chat within parliament, and made lifelong friends in this place. Notably, at a time of heightened partisanship, some of his closest friendships were from across the aisle, including with Fred Daly, a Whitlam government minister.

After retiring from parliament in 1983, Peter made more significant contributions to the business world. Peter served as chairman of the AFL Commission and held senior positions in radio and television broadcasting. In 1993 Peter was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his extraordinary services to the Australian parliament and to the community. His commitment to the Gippsland region shaped Peter's contributions to public life. Gippsland was home. Gippsland was where his family had lived and farmed for four generations through times of bushfires, drought and hardship. While he served with distinction under those five prime ministers in multiple ministerial and cabinet positions, Peter was always focused on Gippsland and the people who sent him to Canberra for over two decades.

Peter's commitment to his electorate reminds us of the immense privilege it is to serve our communities and to make a difference in this place. Once again, on behalf of the government, I extend my condolences to his family and to his friends following his passing. Vale.

I rise on behalf of the opposition to pay tribute to the Hon. Peter James Nixon AO, a distinguished servant of the Australian parliament, a true champion of rural and regional Australia and a proud son of Gippsland. I also acknowledge members of his family who are here today joining us in the chamber in the gallery—our condolences to you. I'll make a contribution on behalf of the coalition but I do also acknowledge that the leader of the National Party here in the Senate will be making personal contributions in relation to the condolence.

Peter passed away on 1 May 2025. He lived a long life and was aged 97. His was a life defined by public service, loyalty to his community and a commitment to the National Party and to the coalition more broadly. Born in Orbost, Victoria in 1928, Peter's roots in Gippsland shaped the entirety of his public life. A grazier by profession and temperament, he held a deep belief in the dignity of rural communities and the necessity for government to serve them faithfully. Peter entered the Australian parliament in 1961 as the Country Party member for Gippsland, a seat he would hold until his retirement in 1983. In an era before modern communications, Peter was known for travelling vast distances across Gippsland to ensure that the voices of farmers, the voices of small business owners and the voices of local families were heard here in the Australian parliament.

He was elected, as I said, in 1961, and in 1967 he was appointed to the ministry. This marked the beginning of what would become an influential and highly respected ministerial career across both the Holt and the Fraser governments. As Minister for the Interior from 1967 to 1971, he dealt with the complexities of governing Australia's territories at a time when the nation's population and infrastructure were rapidly expanding. He later served as the Minister for Shipping and Transport in 1971 and 1972 in the McMahon government, where he worked to ensure that regional Australia remained connected to the nation's commercial life through robust transport networks, a cause that he championed throughout his life.

It was during the Fraser government from 1975 to 1983 that Peter's reputation as one of the most formidable advocates for regional Australia was fully realised. As Minister for Transport from 1975 to 1979, and later as Minister for Primary Industry from 1979 to 1983, Peter helped shape key areas of national policy. He worked to strengthen rural and regional Australians. They fundamentally get this. He worked to strengthen the road and rail networks that kept our regions moving. And he brought his agricultural portfolio and understanding from his own experience on the land. He understood the practical realities faced by primary producers and he fought for policies that provided stability in what, as we know, are often volatile markets. When dealing with drought policy, market access or the structural challenges that rural communities face, Peter was renowned for bringing common sense, resilience and, more than that, a willingness to listen.

Across the breadth of his service, Peter remained loyal to the principles of the coalition partnership. He fundamentally believed in its strength, its necessity and its unique capacity to reflect the interests of both urban and regional Australians. He was known within government and across the parliament—this is something to be proud of, in particular for his family—as a man of his word. He was known in the parliament for that. He was unpretentious, determined and pragmatic.

His parliamentary career may have ended in 1983, but his contribution to public life did not, and he just continued. He chaired the National Transport Planning Taskforce in the 1990s, delivering reports that shaped infrastructure development well beyond his years in office. In 2015 he was rightly appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his distinguished service to the Parliament of Australia, to the transport and primary industry sectors and to the people he loved, the people he served, the people of Gippsland.

Away from politics, Peter was perhaps more passionate, I'm told, about two things: his beautiful family, representatives of which have joined us in the chamber today, and his beloved Richmond Football Club. That is the only marking down I'm going to get to give him. I have to mark him down for that one; I'm a Western Australian! As a lifelong supporter of the Tigers, Peter was actually celebrated by the club not just for his loyalty through good seasons and bad—something my husband needs to learn about!—but for his example of integrity and perseverance. That's beautiful. Following his passing, Richmond paid tribute to him as a cherished member of the broader Tiger family, someone who embodied the club's spirit of resilience.

Closer to home, in Gippsland, Peter remained a towering figure long after he left Canberra. He was celebrated for his ongoing connection to the region through agriculture, through civic leadership and through the countless relationships he maintained across generations. He was a respected elder, a mentor to so many and, perhaps more fundamentally, a reminder of what principled leadership looks like. Peter's passing is the end of a remarkable chapter in Australian political and regional history.

This is an interesting fact: he served under six prime ministers. Some say it was five, but it was actually six, for the record. This is incredible. There are not many who can say they served under six prime ministers. Peter served under Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, John McEwen, John Gorton, William McMahon and Malcolm Fraser. That is actually extraordinary from an historical perspective. This of course meant that, when you look at the breadth of those prime ministers, he navigated periods of significant change, but, as I said, he never lost sight of the people he was sent to Canberra to represent. His legacy is not only one of policy achievements and ministerial titles but also one of quiet influence, of community service and of dedication to the people of Gippsland.

On behalf of the opposition, I extend our deepest condolences to Peter's children, his grandchildren and his great grandchildren. His was, without a doubt, a life exceptionally well lived. His service leaves a lasting mark on this nation and on the regions he loved. May he rest in peace.

It gives me extraordinary pleasure to rise today to speak on this condolence motion for a giant of the Country Party, now National Party; a giant of regional Victoria; and an absolute champion for our nation. I associate the National Party senators with the comments from both the government and the opposition leader.

I want to set the scene with the words to follow:

Oh, we're from Tigerland.

A fighting fury,

We're from Tigerland.

In any weather you will see us with a grin,

Risking head and shin.

If we're behind then never mind.

We'll fight and fight and win.

For we're from Tigerland,

We never weaken til the final siren's gone.

Like the Tiger of old,

We're strong and we're bold.

For we're from Tiger,

Yellow and Black.

We're from Tigerland.

As a strong and sad Saints supporter, it was very tough for me to actually read that, but the man that we honour today in this chamber never gave up. He fought through thick and thin for the things he believed would make a difference for his communities, tiny towns in Gippsland—farming, fishing, forestry and, particularly when Peter was representing them, mining—and for our nation and particularly for the fighting force which is the National Party in the federal parliament.

To each of us in this place is granted an inch of time to use each day as representatives of the people to the best of our talents and abilities. Peter James Nixon's inch of time was longer than most—97 years. He was sharp as a tack till the end, giving advice frequently, fiercely and freely. From 1961 until 1983—21 years as the dedicated member for Gippsland—he served under six prime ministers: Menzies; Holt; McEwan, a National Party prime minister; Gorton; McMahon; and Fraser. His good fortune was that 19 of those years were in government, enabling him to be one of the most influential and consummate politicians of his generation—not just a tiger but a lion of our party.

Peter was born in Orbost on March 22 1928. A fourth-generation Gippslander, he grew up farming near Orbost and went to school in the district, apart from a couple of years of attending Wesley College down in Melbourne. On 27 July 1952, he married the love of his life, Sally, a member of the prominent Dahlsen family from East Gippsland. Sally was Peter's rock in a very successful partnership that lasted 60 years.

When the sitting member for Gippsland, George Bowden, retired in 1961, Peter was prompted by Sally to stand. She said: 'It'll be over in six weeks. It's a big field. You won't win, but I don't want you complaining that you didn't at least try, as your late father had done all his life. The family honour will be intact.' Peter vividly recalled the first night of preselection. There was a roaring fire on a winter's night in a cold hall in Noorinbee. Gippsland is a bit like Canberra when it comes to temperature—very cold. Peter had drawn last speaker in a field of 12 candidates. Sally's words of encouragement were, 'I told you you wouldn't win.' A fire inside the hall roared, candidates droned on and on—I'm not sure, but I bet there wasn't a woman there—and, according to Peter, nearly all the party members were asleep by the time he stepped up to the plate at midnight. Right at that moment, a huge clap of thunder above the shed woke everybody up, and, let's just say, a political legend was born.

Peter Nixon's first days as an MP were inauspicious. Sir Robert Menzies, of whom Peter was in awe, asked him how his maiden speech went. The Prime Minister was cross that Peter had only used 12 of his 20 allocated minutes. 'Dreadful,' came Nixon's reply, knowing how nervous he'd been. 'You should always be the same,' counselled Menzies, 'and if you're not, you're actually not doing justice to the big occasions.'

Peter quickly learned his tradecraft and went on to be a highly respected parliamentarian and minister. He was Minister for Primary Industry, Minister for the Interior, Postmaster-General, Minister for National Resources, Minister for Shipping and Transport, and he acted in other portfolios, including trade, industry and natural resources. He navigated droughts, commodity price collapses and shifting global trade patterns with a steady hand and a farmer's pragmatism.

As Minister for the Interior from 1967 to 1971, Peter drove change in Aboriginal affairs, for education, housing and inclusion, against the views of Labor adviser Nugget Coombs, who had argued the case for funding to maintain traditional ways of life, an intractable dilemma that's never actually been resolved. He had to deal with the busy Sydney airport problem and noisy flight paths. He helped shape the Australian national railways policy, port authorities and coastal shipping long before 'supply chain resilience' became a buzzword. He tried valiantly to establish an Australian ship manufacturing capacity but was up against militant unions and endless demarcation disputes that made it unviable. He was involved in the contentious proposal to build a nuclear power plant at Jervis Bay, of which Liberal prime minister John Gorton was an enthusiastic proponent. If only they had got the job done. Nixon built on McEwen's trailblazing work in export trade. He was responsible for the first nationwide rules for roads, for major electoral redistributions and for this very building in which we sit today, which was once called—would you believe it!—new Parliament House.

He was a key member of Fraser's famed 'razor gang'. In July 1970, there was a push by a US senator for higher import restrictions on Australian beef—note that aggressive US trade tactics were not the invention of Donald Trump; this is an old story. Nixon happened to be at the Katherine Show when the news came through, and he went to the centre of the arena, grabbed the microphone and announced that the US senator should be hung, drawn and quartered and roasted on the altar of high protection. Amen! Nixon's comments caused a stir, and he received a request from the US ambassador to see him about how much it had upset a very senior, respected US senator. 'Well, all I could say in response was that the Americans preached free trade but did not practise it, and therefore I could not apologise,' Nixon wrote in his memoirs many years later. Indeed, Peter was known as one of the hard men of politics.

In the days when there were no mobile phones and no television, and communications were only a landline, Peter would fly to and from his farm in Gippsland and Canberra. Peter's family always knew when their father was arriving home, because the phone would start ringing about 10 minutes before he arrived. Peter had a personal, unbreakable rule: he would always return a call made to him. But, if he didn't catch you, if you didn't pick up—and he wouldn't stop returning calls until late in the evening—if you missed that call, he didn't ring you back. That's on you!

Menzies gave Peter another piece of sage advice, which he took on board. Sir Robert said:

When this ride is all finished, the only thing you will have left is your family. So, make sure you look after them.

It's a great privilege that Peter's daughter, Jo; his son Chris; grandchildren; and family members are in the chamber today and have been able to hear the condolences and the respect from across the parliament, in both chambers, for this great man. In 1967, with Nixon's first ministerial appointment, his family was packed up from Orbost and went to live in Campbell in Canberra, where Peter was able to keep his family closer, heeding Menzies's advice, and he was able to attend some netball and footy games and speech nights.

Peter Nixon was described by one journalist as 'the man who gets things done, a completely tough political animal who's earned his place in the ruling triumvirate of the National Country Party through hard work, professionalism and an astute political common sense'. The 'Country Party's lethal troika' was how journalist Paul Kelly described them, referring to Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair and Peter Nixon, the lieutenants of Sir John 'Black Jack' McEwen—arguably our party's greatest leader. The Sydney Morning Herald referred to the trio as the 'Mulga Mafia', claiming in 1984 that they were regarded by many as 'one of the shrewdest political alliances Australia has ever seen'. If you could encapsulate the three, Anthony, anointed to follow McEwen, would be the affable one; Sinclair, the silver tongued, urbane one; and Nixon, the arm wrestler—unrelenting, implacable, unafraid to get in a fight. These were characteristics that earned him deep respect across the political divide. Later, when Australia's most famous union official, Bob Hawke, was mulling over whether he would come to Canberra, he sought advice from Peter Nixon on how to go about it. Others, too, sought his counsel over the years: Paul Keating, Kim Beazley and Simon Crean.

In a profession where true friendship is rare, Nixon was Malcolm Fraser's best friend, and his eulogy at the passing of former prime minister Fraser was touching to say the least. When Fraser had to sack his deputy and treasurer, Phillip Lynch, who was seriously ill in hospital at the time, Fraser actually sent Peter Nixon to do the job. Imagine that phone call from the Prime Minister—'I need you to go sack my treasurer, Nicko.'

Upon learning of his passing, former prime minister John Howard, who was at the memorial service, described Peter Nixon as possessing one of the finest political minds he had encountered in his years of public life. Former prime minister John Howard never forgot Peter's sage advice to him on the need to have a balance in the relationship between departments and private office staff.

Historian Geoffrey Blainey said that, in an era before opinion polls, no politician had a better feel for what the majority of Australian people were silently thinking than Peter Nixon, which was all the more unusual, he said, because Nixon held a safe rural electorate, far from capital cities.

Peter Nixon learned his political trade at the feet of two giants, Menzies and McEwen. He was a senior member of the National Party, supporting McEwen when he intervened to block Billy McMahon from being elevated to the leadership of the Liberal Party and, as a result, the prime ministership following the tragic disappearance and death of Harold Holt. Sally received a call while Pete was out fishing off Cape Conran, saying, 'Get to Canberra; Holt's disappeared.' McEwen called his lieutenants, and they swiftly went to work while McMahon was still sipping champagne at King's Cross. It was Anthony who went knocking on the door of a pyjamaed Senator Gorton at the time, and it was Peter Nixon that was sent by McEwen to go drinking Scotch with the Liberal Party members to hear the gossip and report back to McEwen so that the National Party could work out their next move in what was one of the great plays in political history—which he did. He was a quiet young lad. He just sat at the back of the room and listened well. Anyway, all's well that ends well!

Nixon recalled in his memoir that, in 1973, after the arrival of the new Whitlam government—the first Labor government since 1949, remember—both Liberal Party and Country Party organisations thought it was best to temporarily go their separate ways. Nixon recalled that there were to be no joint meetings, no combined strategies for question time or for legislation and so on.

During the Whitlam interregnum, Nixon recalled his approach to his opponent, Labor transport minister Charlie Jones. Jones's leg would shake in question time in anticipation of questions informed by Nixon's considerable contacts across the road, transport, aviation and shipping industries. They would be calling in with what the minister should be asked. Nixon said: 'I used to go into the House and verbally belt him around the head just to soften him up. Then I'd ring him after with the amendments that I actually needed.' Gough Whitlam asked Nixon to come down to his office and gently requested that he lay off his minister, to which Nixon politely declined—politics was politics.

There was one telling event leading into the 1974 election which demonstrates Nixon's tough but straightforward approach. The Victorian division of the Liberal Party was divided, and there was debate about Liberals running against the Country Party and the Country Party running against Liberals. But both Peter Nixon and Phillip Lynch knew that this would be a disaster at the upcoming election, so they tried to sort their organisations out. They knew it would be harmful to their chances at the election that was only months away. They both agreed that Lynch should sort it out within the Victorian Liberal Party but needed time to talk the party elders around, saying, 'We can't deliver if this thing blows up any more.' Peter Nixon hit the phones to keep Country Party officials in Victoria, issuing instructions that no-one was to make big statements. He was actually reported as opening discussion with, 'The first bloke who opens his mouth is going to get punched.' The Liberals backed down, all kumbaya, and the coalition went on to the election. Ah, memories!

Many Australians are familiar with the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government. On 15 October 1975, in one of the most historic decisions in Australian political history, the coalition leadership group—the leadership group that has been going for a long time and that Senator Cash and I have sat on together for a long time—decided to block the budget and force Whitlam to the polls. Political commentator Paul Kelly later wrote, 'It took this decision only after the tough-minded Country Party shadow minister Peter Nixon asked what would happen if the budget was blocked and Whitlam stayed in office, as he had threatened.' It was Nixon who asked the pivotal and fatal question during question time in the House, according to Paul Kelly. 'Wouldn't that situation be left for Kerr to resolve?' The Prime Minister gave a different answer. Fraser felt Kerr's response would be dictated by his obligation as the Governor-General, not his past association with the Labor Party. Nixon was also in the room on the day of the Dismissal, on 11 November 1975, when Fraser received a phone call from Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General. He only heard one side of that historic phone call, the monosyllabic responses of Fraser to the Governor-General, but Kerr later denied that call ever happened.

Late in his career, Peter Nixon, faced with controversy, was named in the Woodward royal commission. For Peter, it was a matter of honour, telling a journalist later that 'in his heart he knew that he'd not breached his ministerial responsibilities and that the essential point was that, having been named in the royal commission report, I very sincerely believe that I had no option but to offer my resignation. I offered it without qualification so that the Prime Minister and his colleagues could make a judgement.' His offer of resignation to the Prime Minister was rejected.

Peter never lost sight of being the member for Gippsland, once turning down an invitation to dine with the Queen. Instead, he presented a flag at a sports meeting in Club Terrace, which has a population of fewer than 100 people. His guiding principle as a minister was always: is the decision I'm about to take good for our people and good for our country? They didn't have to be popular if they were right.

Recalling his love of politics, Nixon later recalled: 'I think it's the pace, the sudden pressures. Handling the sudden crises, the emergencies that crop up, is what I like about it. I enjoy the power of making a decision, seeing a decision flow through and backing my own judgement.' He described politics as akin to a 'damn drug'.

Peter was instrumental in shaping the modern National Party. The Nixon review following the 'Joh for PM' experience has served our party well. He was a bridge between the Country Party of old and the party we are today—modern, pragmatic, fiercely regional and proudly independent. He always saw the Country Party not as a faction within the coalition but as a party with our own soul, our own mission and our own voice. He mentored a generation of National Party leaders, and it is a significant honour to serve in his footsteps as the coalition spokesperson—albeit in opposition; hopefully one day as a minister—for shipping and transport. I will be forever personally grateful for his quiet counsel, his wicked sense of humour and his unflinching honesty.

He always displayed an enormous humility. Despite being a nonagenarian, he was a great optimist for our wonderful country. Following his retirement, he enjoyed a highly successful second career taking up board appointments at Southern Cross Broadcasting, Linfox, as a VFL commissioner and an inaugural AFL commissioner, and as a committee member of his beloved Richmond Tigers football club.

It was great to see former Labor finance minister Tanner and former prime minister John Howard there when Peter's memorial service was held at Punt Road. It was great to see the breadth and diversity of men and women whose lives had changed as a result of their relationship with him.

The list of organisations he was involved in is too many to mention, but ranged from a landmark report into the Tasmanian economy to the chair of the Victorian high-speed train committee. When asked if he loved his business career or politics the best, he said he loved both in equal measure. And in 1993, he was deservedly made an Officer of the Order of Australia.

To his beloved children Joanne, Mark and Chris; his grandchildren Katrina, Amanda, Anna, Texas, Toby, Meg and Hugh; and his great-grandchildren Freddie, Mimi, Percy and Archie: on behalf of our great party, I want to offer my deep condolences and thanks for the service of your father and grandfather. He was a great man, an extraordinary man who did extraordinary deeds for our country, and we are forever grateful. Vale, Peter; may he rest in peace.

I simply want to echo the sentiments that have been raised very eloquently by my leader Senator McKenzie. As she said, Peter Nixon was a giant of the National Party. I only had limited interactions with Peter, but I am forever thankful for his responding to me early in my career as, indeed, only a senator-elect, when I was putting together a new edition of John McEwen's autobiography. I got in touch with Peter to ask for a quote about John, and Peter was very polite and very prompt in coming back to me, saying that John McEwen had been a great mentor of his.

There's no doubt in my mind that Peter was taught well and deservedly sits in the pantheon of National Party giants alongside his mentor John McEwen. He's a great loss, therefore, for our party and for our nation, and I pass on my condolences to his family. Thank you for coming here to pay tribute to your dad, to your grandad, who we will all miss.

I did want to just briefly put into Hansard some great stories. It's good to put these down on the record. I'm indebted to another giant of our party, Mr Paul Davey, the father of former senator Perin Davey, for these stories from his great history of the National Party. Bear with me; I won't be too long.

Peter Nixon, like many who start in this place, made friends with other young, newly elected parliamentarians, one of whom was Doug Anthony. He found himself, during a late-night session at Old Parliament House, with not much to do—as often happens—so they decided to start kicking a football around in King's Hall. You probably know where this is going. Somebody—I don't know if Paul found out who—kicked the football into an old painting. It fell to the floor, and the glass shattered, making a huge noise that echoed through Old Parliament House. As Doug Anthony later recounted:

We swept up the broken glass and picked all the bits out of the frame and straightened the painting. It stayed like that for years before anyone noticed there was no glass in the frame!

They weren't too good at kicking actual goals, but Peter Nixon was very good at kicking political goals. He played an integral part in the 1980 federal election when, 17 days from the poll, he found himself in a live television debate with then Western Australian senator Peter Walsh, his shadow ministerial counterpart. During that interview, then senator Walsh said, 'The Labor Party believes that Australia ought to have some form of capital taxation.' Peter Nixon immediately interjected and accused him of 'wiggling too much', saying, 'What do you mean by that?' Walsh responded by saying: 'I'm not wiggling. Whether it will be a capital gains tax, a wealth tax or a reintroduction of inheritance taxes, that is yet to be determined.'

Peter immediately recognised the gravity of that situation. He sent a media release out straightaway. That wasn't picked up, so he sent another one out a couple of days later. That wasn't picked up by the media either; they weren't interested. Eventually he contacted the Liberal Party's famous federal director, Tony Eggleton, and convinced him to record a TV advertisement on the issue, which eventually ran in the penultimate week of the campaign. It is now commonly recognised—and I knew this part of the story, but not of Peter's involvement—that that ad played a very big role in the Liberal-National coalition being returned comfortably at the 1980 election.

There was probably a good reason why the media didn't pick up Peter Nixon's press releases; he wasn't always that popular with the press gallery. He had actually developed a career of especially getting stuck into the ABC about its left-wing bias—which, of course, he ended and no longer exists! During this part of his career, he thought he needed to look like he was across all types of media regulation, so he got his office to get a bunch of thick volumes on the history of broadcasting in Britain. He also got a number of annual reports of the ABC, and he formed a phalanx of these books in his bookcase behind his shoulder for when he was doing TV interviews in his office so that, when he was getting stuck into the ABC, behind him it looked like, 'Well, this guy knows what he's talking about.' He later confided that he never once opened the books or reports, but it did the trick.

Finally, on a more serious note: Senator McKenzie did, through the chair, outline how tough Nixon was with other Country Party ministers. There is another famous story that Minister McMahon once brought forward a proposal to revalue the Australian dollar. It was going to be very injurious to farming interests, and the cabinet ended up meeting over three days to discuss this one issue. Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair and Peter Nixon walked out from the cabinet meeting on three separate occasions, and they demanded a revaluation of no greater than 5.2 per cent. Eventually, 6.3 per cent was decided upon, and McMahon did admit that that actually led to an overall depreciation, relative to our trading partners. As Mr Davey recounts in his history of the National Party, it was a victory for the Country Party.

While we have lost Peter Nixon, we have not lost his example, his principles, his strength and his determination to stand up for many in this country that don't have access to this parliament or a voice to influence matters. We will always, as a team, seek to work in tune with the actions of the likes of Peter Nixon. Again, I pass my condolences to his family. Vale, Peter Nixon.

As a member of the Nationals family, I express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the Hon. Peter James Nixon AO, who represented Gippsland in Victoria as a member of the Australian Country Party, the National Country Party and the National Party of Australia from 1961 until 1983.

We've heard much on this, but I love hearing the stories of the men and women who've come before us, and so I'll repeat his great loves: Gippsland—and specifically his home soil of Orbost, where his great-grandparents settled in 1865—and his family. His beloved wife, Sally, of almost 60 years, sadly passed in 2013 and was his absolute gem. To Peter and Sally's children, Joanne, Mark, and Chris; to their grandchildren, Katrina, Amanda, Anna, Texas, Toby, Meg and Hugh; and to their great-grandchildren, Freddie, Mimi, Percy and Archie: I am so sorry for your loss.

Peter Nixon was born in 1928. He didn't just observe the evolution of Australia over almost 100 years until his death on 1 May this year; he was a key decision-maker in its progress, as a farmer and a grazier, as a parliamentarian and a minister for 21 years, and through his contributions to the corporate sector, particularly as founding chair of Southern Cross Broadcasting and as foundation commissioner for his beloved AFL. In recognition of his service to parliament and to the community, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1993.

During his political career, Peter was Minister for the Interior, Minister for Transport and Minister for Primary Industry, and we have heard how he served under six former prime ministers: Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, John McEwen, John Gorton, Billy McMahon and Malcolm Fraser. He was known for his toughness and professionalism and to have an impenetrable grasp of his portfolios. He enjoyed the rough-and-tumble of politics, arguably creating some of it himself at times. He once referred to politics as a 'damn drug', rated common sense 'as a rare commodity' and complained that the worst part of his job was 'travelling and wasting time in ruddy airports'.

Having read Peter's maiden speech from 1961, I reminisce on the unwavering focus of the National Party in defending and fighting for the livelihoods of generations of regional Australians and how today's news regarding trade relations between Australia and the United States, specifically in relation to beef, echoes Peter's concerns from 65 years ago. I quote from Peter's maiden speech on 20 February 1962:

Gippsland is … in the main a primary-producing electorate, and it is as a farmer that I, a newcomer to this House, would like to direct attention to the fears that are in the minds of farmers, not only in my electorate but generally throughout the nation. They want to know where they are heading and what their long-term prospects are.

He goes on to express concern regarding the economic strength of the European common market, which at that time had an external tariff barrier against the free entry of Australian goods. Peter's words on that day were:

To read in the newspapers of the possibility of a common tariff arrangement between the Common Market and the United States of America chills my blood.

And, he warns, 'This prospect is just as alarming for secondary industry as it is for primary industry.' He wishes the best of luck to the Minister for Trade in his upcoming overseas delegation, as, he says, 'There is no doubt that the whole economic security of Australia depends on the results they achieve.' As we are honoured to currently be witnessing and congratulating the maiden speeches of new senators, it is interesting to reflect that Peter Nixon's words could well be appropriate and relevant again this week.

Like many of us from all sides of the political spectrum, Peter Nixon was introduced to politics by driving his father to party meetings and later handing out how-to-vote cards at state and federal elections. He entered politics with the encouragement of his wife, Sally; served with vigour, determination and honour; and had the rare dignity of leaving politics on his terms.

I will just add that, as a very new senator from Queensland, I was very interested in the survival of the dairy industry and the terrific tribulations that they were going through, thanks to dollar-a-litre milk being introduced by the supermarkets, amongst other trying times, and I was doing my very best to try and negotiate an improvement for dairy farmers across Australia when I received a call from Peter Nixon, who, at this point, I estimate, was 92. With clarity and concise advice, he did provide some very good advice to me. He was frustrated that we weren't able to be as hands-on-the-levers as I think he and his colleagues were, as ministers in previous generations. But I do always appreciate that he took the time to ring and educate a new young senator on something that we both equally were so passionate about.

So I am incredibly grateful for the service of a man of Peter's calibre, for the sacrifice that his family made in giving up so much of his time and his life. Australia is the better for it. And I say vale, Peter Nixon AO.

I also rise to honour the Hon. Peter Nixon AO, a giant of the National Party, a champion of the bush and a man whose legacy is etched not only in policy but in the lives he touched right across this nation and throughout regional Australia.

I am the newest of the Nats in here, so I guessed all the good stories would be taken by the time I stood up! So I'm going to take a slightly different view of what we're going to do. I'm going to shine a light, from the seniors of our party I've spoken to, on what he meant to them and the feelings on that. They say that they reveal the heart of a man who never lost sight of the people he came here to serve. He was a master of connection. He carried the spirit of the bush into every room he entered. He had an uncanny ability to make the complex machinery of Canberra feel human, and he went back and he translated that policy into the language of farmers, of small-town mayors and of families across the land. He didn't just come here to represent regional Australia; he embodied it in everything he did.

What set him apart, when I talked to these people, was his refusal to let power dim his humility. He was a minister who answered the late-night calls, as we heard, from country councils; who drove the dusty roads; who went to see the farmers and met them on their terms. These weren't gestures; that was his genuine way of life. He was authentic all the way through.

I think of the tireless work—little things I didn't know about, like trying to get a shipping line to go down to Bass Strait or his early push for air service to remote towns. Again, these are things we're still fighting for now—proper connectivity to regions. We've heard he was generous with his time. He was a mentor to so many young MPs and not-so-young MPs, including a future prime minister—not even all National MPs. I didn't know things like that. They all tell me he'd listen, he'd advise and he'd often challenge them with a dry wit. There is something that came through in a couple stories I was told from New South Wales. He had a pause. You would know him better than us. There would be a pause in the conversation which would tell them they'd potentially done the wrong thing, without him saying they'd done the wrong thing.

He didn't chase headlines; he just fought for hard-earned truths. His approach to reform was uniquely Australian but grounded, ambitious yet inclusive. Whether on modernising technologies or strengthening rural postal networks, he always pursued progress that lifted communities. He took communities with him because that was his passion. He didn't want to leave anyone behind, and he knew lasting change required trust, not just policy.

Even in retirement, he remained a man of principle. He watched politics with a clear eye. We're hearing of the phone calls that came through. He was never afraid to call out his own side—us—when integrity demanded it. To him, public service wasn't just about popularity; it was about doing right by the people, from the smallest station to the largest city. As Peter once said, you don't do it for the thanks; you do it because people depend on you. Peter Nixon's legacy lives on in the roads that still carry our goods, the services that still bind our regions and the example he set to us all—that politics at its best is about building bridges between communities, between people, between places and between possibilities.

To his family I offer the New South Wales National Party's deepest condolences. To this Senate I offer a challenge: let us honour Peter by striving to serve with the same humility, the same purpose and the same unyielding commitment to those beyond these walls. May he rest in peace.

I would like to rise to add my voice and associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues across the chamber in this place for a servant of the nation that I never met but that I did have the opportunity to see the influence of in my home state of Tasmania. As Senator McKenzie indicated in her remarks, Peter Nixon completed a report into the economy of Tasmania in the late nineties, and I recall my good friend the then premier of Tasmania, Tony Rundle—who, sadly, also passed away only very recently. I was sitting in Tony's office one day, and Tony was saying to me that when the Nixon report was tabled, when it was brought down, the community were effectively marching in the streets, seeking the introduction of the measures that were contained in the report. Such was the respect that the Tasmanian community held for Peter and the work that he'd done.

There is a bit of a theme that runs through the presentations here tonight, which is that, the more things change, the more they stay the same with respect to the issues, because the key issues identified by Peter in that report with respect to the Tasmanian economy included overgovernance, and we have a continuing debate with respect to the number of local government areas that exist within Tasmania. The chestnut of actually getting things done in our state, which remains today, is parochialism—we hear a lot about north and south, but sometimes we don't hear about north, south and north-west—bureaucracy, resistance to change—and that is as valid today as it was in the late nineties, when this report was issued—and polarisation of issues. People hold very close to the issues that they find in our state and they fight for them very hard, and nothing is more evident than that in the politics of Tasmania today.

One important recommendation that he made and that has progressed is the importance of tourism to the island of Tasmania. Peter recognised that in his report, and it now contributes over 10 per cent of our economy—the importance of tourism infrastructure and the development of that. That goes to some of the points that my colleagues have already raised that were extremely important and have played a huge role in the development of the tourism industry in Tasmania. For example, the development of MONA, although it's a purely private piece of infrastructure, demonstrates how right Peter was when he made those recommendations, because that was another one of the elements of the importance of the development of the tourism industry in Tasmania.

He also recommended the continuation of the Freight Equalisation Scheme, which remains an extremely important part of the Tasmanian economy, recognising the importance of Tasmania's sea freight disadvantages. He recommended an annual review of the parameters to keep it up to date, and we just had a debate in the lead-up to the last election about that and addressing bureaucracy, promoting innovation and change. Part of the conversation that I had with Tony on that occasion was that, although people were marching in the streets to see the implementation of the reforms recommended by the Nixon review, every time he tried to implement one of those reforms—going back to the point about resistance to change—they were marching in the streets to try and stop him. The only things that didn't receive pushback were the support for the Freight Equalisation Scheme and tourism infrastructure. In fact, the attempt to reform local government was one of the things that led to the downfall and the loss of the Rundle government in 1998, and the resistance to change in that space remains as it was today.

I think it just goes to reinforce the strength of the stories, the strength of character that someone like Peter brought to the tasks that he was given—that the report that he made into the Tasmania economy was so highly regarded. After Tony Rundle lost government in 1998, Jim Bacon, the new Labor Premier, picked up a lot of the elements of the Nixon review and quietly implemented them as his own, demonstrating the strength of the work that was done across the parliament. They have obviously gone on to become important parts of the Tasmanian economy.

To broaden out the recognition that has been provided by my colleagues but also to express the appreciation of the Tasmanian community for the contribution that Peter made to our state, I am very, very pleased to be able to stand in this place today and recognise that. It's fantastic that members of his family are here to be able to hear us make the recognition. I know that he and Tony Rundle became great friends during the period of time of preparation of the report and the work that Tony did in looking to implement the recommendations. I'm very pleased to add my voice and associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues across the chamber in recognising someone who was not only a powerful voice for regional Australia but an important voice for all of Australia in his public service. I'm very thankful for that. You as his family can be proud and thankful for that. I'm very pleased to add my voice to those of others in the chamber expressing our condolences to you for the loss of a great Australian and thanking him for his service. May he rest in peace.

I just have a brief personal reflection. I grew up on a family farm in Pemberton. I admit that my dad was a political tragic, but the influence of Peter Nixon is demonstrated right across Australia in that I well remember the name Peter Nixon and his role as minister both for transport and primary industries in discussions with my father across the kitchen table. If you have a look at the distance between Gippsland and Pemberton, it does show you the breadth of influence that Peter Nixon had.

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

Earlier today, senators voted by ballot to determine the crossbench members of various committees. The votes have now been counted, and the senator that received the most votes for each committee has been elected as a member of that committee. The votes are as follows. The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee: Senator Stacey, 32 votes; Senator Barbara Pocock, 37 votes. The Finance and Public Administration References Committee: Senator Stacey, 32 votes; Senator Barbara Pocock, 37 votes. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee: Senator Stacey, 32 votes; Senator Shoebridge, 37 votes. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee: Senator Stacey, 31 votes; Senator Shoebridge, 38 votes. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission: Senator Shoebridge, 36 votes; Senator David Pocock, 33 votes. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee: Senator Whish-Wilson, 37 votes; Senator Whitten, 32 votes. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee: Senator Whish-Wilson, 39 votes; Senator Whitten, 30 votes.

by leave—I present three delegation reports as listed on the Order of Business.

I present additional information received by various legislation committees relating to estimates:

Budget estimates 2016-17—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Additional estimates 2016-17—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Budget estimates 2018-19 (Supplementary)—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information—Education and Training portfolio.

Additional estimates 2018-19—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Additional estimates 2019-20—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information.

Budget estimates 2020-21—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information—

Educations, Skills and Employment portfolio.

Employment and Industrial Relations portfolio.

Additional estimates 2020-21—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Budget estimates 2021-22—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Budget estimates 2021-22 (Supplementary)—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information.

Additional estimates 2021-22—Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information—

Educations, Skills and Employment portfolio.

Employment and Industrial Relations portfolio.

Budget estimates 2023-24—

Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 18 July 2023 and 29 July 2024—

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

Health and Aged Care portfolio.

Services Australia.

Social Services portfolio.

Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Budget estimates 2023-24 (Supplementary)—

Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 6 December 2023 and 7 May 2024—

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

Health and Aged Care portfolio.

Services Australia.

Social Services portfolio.

Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information.

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information.

Additional estimates 2023-24—

Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 19 March and 7 June 2024—

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

Health and Aged Care portfolio.

Services Australia.

Social Services portfolio.

Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information—

Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio.

Cross portfolio (Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters)

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio (excluding Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development portfolio).

Budget estimates 2024-25—

Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 25 July and 17 December 2024—

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

Health and Aged Care portfolio.

Services Australia.

Social Services portfolio.

Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information.

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information—

Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio.

Cross portfolio (Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters)

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio (excluding Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development portfolio).

Budget estimates 2024-25 (Supplementary)—

Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information.

Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information.

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information.

At the request of Senator Ghosh, I present additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023.

I present four government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

The documents were unavailable at the time of publishing.

In respect of the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the Department of Defence annual report 2021-22, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the Department of Defence annual report 2022-23, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I table a non-conforming petition from Medecins Sans Frontieres, signed by 65,000 Australians: Protect the people of Gaza now: public petition. What we are calling for is to protect lives, lift the siege and stop weaponising aid.

At the request of Senator Hodgins-May, I table the Centre for Public Integrity's report Still shrouded in secrecy.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I take note of the Report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has now provided two reports on the Australian Federal Police's handling of complaints against its appointees—against members of the Australian Federal Police. This report covers the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June last year. That report has now been tabled, and I have to tell you that it is utterly damning of the management by the Australian Federal Police of complaints against Federal Police about their conduct. I'll quote from the report:

This report contains the results of two reviews of the AFP's administration of complaints conducted by my Office—

the Ombudsman's office—

Our first review, in August 2023, focused on its administration of allegations of minor misconduct administered as Category 1 or Category 2 complaints. Our second review … focused on allegations of serious misconduct administered as Category 3 or 4 complaints.

This is a summary of what the Ombudsman found, from the executive summary:

We found across both reviews the AFP was not delivering a complaint handling system that was meeting the requirements of the Act, particularly in relation to how the AFP are exercising the discretion under section 40TF of the Act to take no further action in relation to complaints. My Office previously identified a systemic issue of the AFP not investigating complaints based on the perceived merits of incomplete information, often without sufficient attempt to obtain potential evidence from complainants and AFP appointees. I am concerned this issue has not been addressed and the AFP is continuing to decide to not investigate complaints before confirming the existence of relevant evidence.

There's a neat way of summarising what this is. The AFP have had complaints—often very serious complaints—about how they exercised excessive force against children, about how they used excessive force against members of the public and about their access to confidential information and their use of confidential information, and what the Ombudsman is saying in this report is that the Australian Federal Police senior officers used the discretion they had to just kill the complaints without even pretending to investigate them. What is worse is that, after this was pointed out to the AFP in the initial August review, the AFP did nothing. Again I'll quote from the Ombudsman's report:

My Office made 2 recommendations to the AFP to improve its use of section 40TF of the Act following our August 2023 review—

and remember section 40TF is the kill power, the power that senior AFP officers have to just kill off complaints without even bothering to investigate them. It's a discretion that they have abused time after time. The Ombudsman says:

The AFP advised my Office in July 2024 that it had not implemented our recommendations and advised that it would seek to work in consultation with our Office on the application of section 40TF of the Act. We again made findings related to the use of section 40TF of the Act at our May 2024 review … including 4 recommendations. I am encouraged that the AFP has accepted all the latest recommendations and has undertaken to initiate an external review of the AFP's complaint management system to address this issue.

After two reports and multiple findings that the AFP is in routine breach in how it handles complaints, they are undertaking, apparently, an external review. We have had no clarity from Commissioner Kershaw or from the Attorney-General about who is undertaking the external review, what the terms of reference of this external review are or whether or not any of the gross failures of the AFP have been addressed to date.

When you read further in the report, it again shows that things are not getting better in the AFP; they're getting worse. The ombudsman says:

Compared with previous years, the AFP was exercising the discretion to take no further action in relation to complaints under s 40TF of the Act in a disproportionate manner.

We found that most of the instances we reviewed involving s 40TF of the Act were unreasonable, unfair and failed to meet the requirements of the Act.

This is the police force we're talking about. The police force's conduct of its own internal complaints handling system was 'unreasonable, unfair and failed to meet the requirements of the act'. What have we heard from the Albanese government about this? Zip, nada, nothing. There's never accountability against the Australian Federal Police when they engage like this. It's as though Commissioner Kershaw has some sort of protective cloak on that prevents any kind of effective control, even when the most extreme failures have been shown here by the ombudsman. We say to the Albanese government: will you continue to allow the AFP to have these gross failures of what are often some of the most significant conduct— (Time expired)

I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Manyana application for residential development.

It has been great to be back in this place this week, starting the 48th Parliament to make Australia a fairer place. The next three years mean more tax cuts; more energy bill relief; a stronger Medicare with better access to health through urgent care centres, cheaper medicines and free GP visits by 2030; a plan for universal and well-funded education; a plan for fee-free TAFE to be permanent; a plan to reduce HECS debts by 20 per cent, for which the legislation was introduced this week in the other place; a plan for cheaper child care close to home; and penalty rates secured for 2.6 million workers—again, introduced in the other place this week and, hopefully, debated in this place very soon.

But I have to say the response from the Liberals and the Nationals to my question in question time relating to the security of penalty rates was very disappointing. It demonstrated that, once again, they have learnt nothing. They have not listened to Australians during the election campaign, let alone over the last three years. In particular, they haven't listened or spoken to those who work in retail or hospitality, whether they work in a fast-food chain or they work in warehousing.

Unlike those on that side, we will continue to work hard to support low-income workers in this country. We will also continue to invest the most significant amount of money ever into social and affordable housing in this country. Building 1.2 million new homes across our country will help more people into their first home. All of this is based on having a five per cent deposit. Our government will guarantee the rest of that deposit.

We on this side have a vision and a party platform to implement, unlike those opposite, who are hopelessly divided on climate, with the Nationals refusing to sign up to net zero while the Liberals want to. Those opposite are not functioning as a coalition. They are in a marriage of inconvenience, and the Australian people cannot take them seriously as an alternative Commonwealth government, which was reflected in the vote on 3 May. The Liberals have abandoned people in the cities and in the regions. Australians know that it is the government on this side of the chamber that has a plan for the entire country.

We also saw on 1 July our agenda put into action to increase the minimum wage and award wages for over three million Australian workers, making a difference to them and their families through a real increase to their wage. There's a two-week increase in paid parental leave and, very importantly, we are for the first time going to pay superannuation on that paid parental leave, which will make a huge difference. There's $10,000 for apprentices in construction, adding to what we have already done in the new energy area. There are now paid pracs for teachers, nurses and social workers, making a difference for those people as well. This is so important to attracting people to go and study in those areas of great need. Superannuation has been lifted to 12 per cent for all workers. There's energy bill relief. The next tranche is coming in. Importantly, we're pushing ahead with renewable energy and our battery strategy, which will be embraced by the Australian people.

I want to take particular note of the Prime Minister, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Minister Tony Burke and their leadership in all of these areas. But there's someone else that I would like to acknowledge, somebody who represents the great state of Tasmania. After more than 28 years after the tragedy of Port Arthur, we finally have a national register of gun ownership in this country. That will save lives. It will save police and other law enforcement lives. It will save many people within our communities. It was only a couple of months ago now that we in Tasmania lost a very long-serving, community-minded police officer, who was shot down in the line of duty. It was unacceptable. Police and law enforcement should know, when they are going to a house, farm or property, whether or not there are registered guns there. It's a huge step. It's not all that's needed, but it's a huge step forward, so I want to pay tribute to the former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. Thank you, on behalf of all Tasmanians and the country in general. (Time expired)

At item 9 on the Notice Paper earlier today, the President informed the Senate of the passing of a number of former members of the House of Representative, and one of them was Mr Petro Georgiou, who served the people of Kooyong as an elected member in the House of Representatives between 1994 and 2010. I wanted to take this opportunity to make a few comments in relation to Mr Petro Georgiou, who was a person I greatly admired.

Firstly—and I do this now in my capacity as a shadow minister for citizenship and multicultural affairs—I acknowledge the important role that Petro Georgiou played in promoting multiculturalism in our beautiful country. I want to quote Petro Georgiou's words in this respect. I will quote from an article which he wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday 26 July 2005. This is what he wrote:

When the policy of multiculturalism was adopted in Australia in the 1970s it was a response to the reality that postwar immigration had changed the face of this nation. In one of the largest and most diverse immigration waves in the 20th century, people from more than 100 different countries came to Australia. All sought a better way of life.

They wished for the opportunity to live with dignity, respect and equality. For many, this meant retaining valued aspects of their cultural heritage.

Multiculturalism adopted the principle that public services must accommodate the linguistic and other needs of people of diverse cultures.

Multiculturalism was a rejection of forced assimilation, a recognition that we couldn't make people "Australian" by demanding they renounce heritages they valued. It was a rejection of the notion that Australians must conform to a common stereotype.

This embrace of diversity built upon Australia's liberal democratic traditions. The policy was never without limits. Multiculturalism has explicitly expected Australians, new and old, to make a commitment to Australia and its interests, to the basic structures and principles of society—the constitution and rule of law, parliamentary democracy, tolerance, equality, freedom of speech and religion, and English as the national language.

Whatever the situation elsewhere, multiculturalism has been a demonstrably successful policy. It has positively contributed to Australian culture and to its values. Its overriding ethos of tolerance and harmony has reinforced the character of our democracy.

I note that that concept and those ideals have been reflected in the multicultural framework review that was completed just recently. I commend those associated with that review.

Secondly, I would like to particularly acknowledge the role that Petro Georgiou played in relation to SBS. I want to quote from a speech he gave on 28 June 2000, on the 25th anniversary of SBS—and we've just celebrated the 50th anniversary of SBS. This is what Petro Georgiou said:

SBS broadens our horizons. It reflects and enhances the diversity of Australia's culture. It has developed an admirable news and current affairs tradition with much original and groundbreaking reporting. Overwhelmingly, SBS has been a great success story.

Thirdly, I want to pay particular respect and regard to the moral courage Mr Petro Georgiou demonstrated on a number of occasions with respect to very complicated and controversial issues. He stood up for the most vulnerable people.

Finally, I would like to quote from his valedictory speech. He said:

Progress is not inevitable. It requires commitment, and it requires effort. There are setbacks and there are regressions. But I leave this place still optimistic that Australians will seek and find in their representatives, declarations and deeds that elevate hope above fear, and tolerance above prejudice.

I had immense regard for Mr Petro Georgiou when he was serving in this place, and I will do my very best to continue to advance many of the ideals, concepts and principles that Mr Petro Georgiou stood for.

I will start by saying I'd like to associate myself with the comments from Senator Scarr about Petro Georgiou. May he rest in decency.

Just today my office received direct communication from an Australian doctor who's serving in Gaza. I can't do justice to the contribution that she gave other than by simply reading it on the record here:

My name is Saira Hussain. I am a consultant anaesthetist from Australia.

I have been volunteering as Nasser Medical Complex for the last three weeks.

I previously was here in October 2024.

In the last three weeks during my deployment here, due to the Israeli-imposed blockade of food, water, fuel and medical supplies, I can confidently state that what we are seeing amounts to more than a genocide.

I don't see malnutrition or hunger. I see the enforced starvation of children and adults. I watch the injured suffer through infections due to the lack of appropriate antibiotics and wounds infested with maggots due to unsanitary conditions because of the lack of clean water.

In the hospital—I see the results of the deliberate killing by targeted shooting from the Israeli military and foreign contractors that man the GHF aid distribution sites.

These are targeted shootings in the head and the groin, in the chest and in the neck.

I see displacement time and again, even in the short time here, of tens of thousands of people from their temporary makeshift homes and tents towards the sea.

The Australian government must do everything in its power to halt this barbarism now.

I want to thank Dr Hussain and all of the medical teams who put their lives at risk to go to Gaza to provide support in such extraordinarily brutal conditions. We have certain obligations when these words come to us. We need to hear them, we need to acknowledge them, we need to believe them, and then we need to act on them.

On 11 July 2025, I had the sombre honour, on the invitation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to participate in the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica. That is the only genocide committed on European soil since the Second World War. The commemoration was held at a Srebrenica Memorial Center in Potocari in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The highest courts of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, have confirmed in their findings that genocide was committed against Bosniaks in the UN safe area of Srebrenica.

When I went to the commemoration, we heard government after government say how they had failed to stop the genocide in Srebrenica and how they were aware of it happening in real time. They also spoke of how the UN failed the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What was meant to be a safe area was effectively abandoned to a brutal attack upon thousands and thousands of civilians.

I was in the former factory where the presentation and the speeches were being made, and in that very same former factory the most obscene violence—sexual and physical violence and murders—had occurred just 30 years ago. It was chilling and extraordinarily moving to be in that space. But for all of the speeches we heard—governments that said that never again would they allow a genocide, never again would they let this happen—I have to tell you that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina couldn't help but reflect on the reality of the genocide happening in Palestine. I want to express my enormous admiration for the mothers of Srebrenica who not only are speaking for their sons lost in the appalling genocide in Srebrenica; but they are making the connection to Palestine too.

I want to give my genuine thanks to the Amir Sahinovic, Honorary Consul of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for his assistance and support in my attendance. I want to thank Sanel Begic, a member of the Bosnian Australian community. He was extremely generous to me and my wife, Patricia, in our time in both Sarajevo and Srebrenica. I particularly want to say to the Bosnian Australian community that we must never forget this genocide. We must never permit genocide denial to happen. It happened; we believe it, but we must commit, as a nation and as a planet, to never let it happen again.

I rise today in deep solidarity with Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai, two proud Torres Strait elders who led the class action claiming that the Australian government breached its duty of care to protect the Torres Strait Islands from climate change. As a senator for Queensland, I've travelled to the Torres Strait several times to speak with people on the front lines of climate collapse. I've seen these places—places that are now drowning, inch by inch, under rising seas caused by climate change.

Unfortunately, the case failed because the common law of negligence isn't a suitable legal vehicle—not because they were wrong, not because the science is uncertain but because our system protects fossil fuels more fiercely than it protects our planet. Justice Michael Wigney noted:

There could be little, if any, doubt that the Torres Strait Islands and their traditional inhabitants face a bleak future if urgent action is not taken …

Just today, the International Court of Justice has ruled that countries who fail to tackle climate change are at risk of breaking international law.

While these island communities fight to save their homes, this Labor government is greenlighting new coal and gas projects like Woodside's expansion of the North West Shelf, a carbon bomb that would lock in gas use and exports out to 2070. How can you claim to care about climate change while approving more climate destruction? How can you look Torres Strait families in the eye, families who are already watching shorelines vanish and planning for forced relocation, and tell them that you're doing what's necessary?

Let me be clear. This is climate violence. It's cultural erasure, and it's happening because the Labor Party has become the cheap political vanguard for fossil fuel companies. The major parties thrive when you lose hope. They want to make you feel like you're out of options, feel like hope for your future is naive and think that a stage managed climate collapse is the best you're going to get.

If you're watching this, my plea to you is this: don't give up hope, don't let the major parties lull you into accepting the climate collapse and don't listen when they say they're taking climate action while they're committing to the largest gas expansion in living memory. No more excuses; no more empty targets. The time for real, science based climate policy is now. And to the people of the Torres Strait: we see you, we hear you and we will fight alongside you. Your homes are not expendable, your culture is non-negotiable and your future is worth more than a gas company's profits.

Senate adjourned at 17:47