If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I begin by saying that it is a great honour to hold this portfolio. I have really relished getting to grips with the brief over the last couple of months. I sat down, of course, with the department and with the NDIA and the commission—as you would expect. I've been making my way through the thousands of pages of analyses and reviews that have been produced, and I have spoken with my state and territory counterparts. I've been out and about, talking with advocates and speaking with service providers, regulators, academics and workers in the sector and their representatives, but the most important conversations that I've had have been with people with lived experience of disability—the people who participate in the NDIS. I want to thank the sector and the disability community for how generous they have been with their time and their knowledge.

For decades, people with disability have told policymakers: nothing about us without us. I understand the need, I understand that call and I understand my responsibility to make sure that their voices are heard and that they carry weight. As Minister for the NDIS, I have a responsibility to ensure the NDIS is not done to or for participants without their input. The scheme must be designed, overseen and implemented in partnership with the people who have a lived experience of disability. This will continue to be the government's position going forward.

I also want to make it clear that the NDIS is part of the unique Australian social safety net. It stands alongside Medicare as one of Labor's great achievements, so Labor will continue to make changes to improve the NDIS. We know that the scheme has been life-changing; we know it isn't perfect. We want to ensure that the scheme delivers on the vision as originally set out. We want to protect the safety and uphold the rights of every single participant in the NDIS. We want to ensure that the scheme delivers consistent and fair decisions, and we want every dollar allocated to NDIS participants to reach them and to be spent in a meaningful way that makes a difference to their lives so that people with disability can continue to live with dignity and exercise control over their future. We will pursue these things in line with this very clear principle: if you are a person with a disability, your interests deserve to be at the centre of the policies and the government decisions that affect your life. This is how I'll approach this portfolio as the minister, and it will be at the heart of the Albanese government's approach to the NDIS. We know how important it is to make sure that the NDIS is there for long haul.

In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The government continues to reiterate our view that we cannot agree with this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in continuing to reform the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians, and I thank those Senate colleagues who have reached out to offer support for that broad objective.

On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and that was publicly released on 7 December 2023. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent review panel has said that its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024was the first legislative step by our government towards ensuring this annual growth target is achieved. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate, in addition to the aforementioned review.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Let's recap where we are. We are seeing confusion reign when it comes to the NDIS and the legislation that is meant to support it. The changes that the government rammed through last year are wreaking havoc in the lives of so many disabled people, their families and their allies. Participants are receiving conflicting information from staff. Agency staff are not interacting in a trauma informed way. Planners continue to not read the evidence they have been provided with and that they have often requested. There is a continual pattern of planners and agency delegates making a call, giving a view, in relation to clinical evidence that they are not qualified to assess. Meanwhile, we also continue to see agency staff breach participants' privacy through the sharing of confidential information without the consent of participants and email the wrong people with the wrong information again, again and again.

This new three-month funding period that has been introduced by the government continues to limit choice and control because—guess what? Some people's funding needs and the expenses that go with them don't fit neatly into a three-month funding period. Sometimes they need intense supports, requiring additional funding for longer periods than three months. It just does not make sense. It's the type of bureaucratic nonsense that the NDIS was created to eliminate.

The biggest casualty, though, of the new NDIS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 is the fact that the legislation no longer considers 'reasonable and necessary' in its determination of funding or of supports. And what we have seen as a result of that? We have seen over 700 new appeals to the tribunal in May 2025 alone. It also seems, by the way, that the participant service guarantee, much celebrated when it was passed, has just been chucked out the window. In March 2025, in that quarter, only nine per cent of people who applied to get access to the NDIS had that request actioned in the required 21-day period—nine per cent. Meanwhile, the agency continues to make unreasonable requests of participants, like saying that participants have two business days to reply in relation to the progression of complaints—an unreasonable deadline in itself—and then in fact closing the complaint as the agency hadn't received the information within their own two-day deadline.

We are continuing to see participants kicked off the scheme because of what appears to me to be a culture in the agency that prioritises media management over supporting participants and their families. We're seeing participants kicked off their supports because selectively edited bits of information were presented to a minister by a shock jock during an interview, resulting in a diktat to kick that participant off the scheme. What happened? Ten months later, after appeal after appeal after appeal, they got their funding back because—guess what?—the information the agency had was not sufficient to make the decision and, in fact, when the evidence was looked at, the person very much did meet the requirements and needed those supports.

This is an absolute shame on this government and, indeed, on the entire body of the political system dominated by the major parties. The Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the National Party should hang their heads in shame when they hear what is happening to NDIS participants right now—the fear and uncertainty, the cuts and the pain of people that deserve so much better. Well, we in the Greens will keep fighting for disabled people and their families.

I too stand to speak on the sad fact that this government lacks transparency. This is just another classic example of the government trying to hide what are clearly documents in the public interest about a scheme that is so important to so many Australians. I heard the contribution of the new Minister for the NDIS, Senator McAllister, and I can only hope, despite the words that she just spoke, that she is going to be more transparent than those that have gone before her. The NDIS is important, as the minister outlined, and it is not something that is owned entirely by the Labor Party. The NDIS has been supported across all areas of this chamber because we clearly all believe that it is very important that we support those people that live with permanent and stabilised disability to have the best opportunities they can.

But that is not the point of this particular attendance by the minister. The point of the attendance of the minister is based entirely on transparency. For months and months and months we've been coming into this place and hearing a whole heap of waffle around why this government will not release documents in relation to the financial sustainability framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Nothing could be more important than the financial sustainability of this scheme, because it goes to the very essence of what Senator Steele-John said, and that is supporting Australians who live with disability. The government can say all they like about the scheme, but the reality is that they are not being transparent, and, in the process of not being transparent, they are denying Australians the opportunity to look under the hood and see what's going on with this—to be quite frank—very expensive scheme that we want to make sure is delivering the best interest for those Australians that it was designed to support.

This is just another example of the lack of transparency of this government. In fact, the Centre for Public Integrity recently called out the alarming rise in the lack of transparency delivered by the Albanese government as deeply troubling. Well, it is deeply troubling because the purpose of this parliament and the purpose of this Senate is to make sure that we understand what's actually going on behind what the government is doing. They do not have the right, as government, to be able to cover everything up and not allow Australians to see what they are doing. So these motions and these attendances, like the one we have today, are really important to make sure that we have a system by which the government is required to come into this chamber and answer the Australian people about what it is doing with the money that it collects from Australians through their taxes.

The question it begs in all of this is: what is the government hiding with its refusal to come in here and tell us and to provide documents that are absolutely fundamental to the administration of a very important scheme under the government? It goes to the fact that this is a government that's prepared to lie and then is prepared to take actions to cover up those lies, because quite often, if information were made available, you would see that much of what the government is saying is actually untrue. We saw that with the 'Mediscare' campaign that they ran in the election campaign, only to find out that the department itself had told the government that their claim that the only thing you'd need when going to see the doctor was your Medicare card was untrue. Their department itself said that a significant number of practices would still require people to pay out-of-pocket costs, which we are seeing right now. We also saw the same thing with taxation and the promises they took to the election. We now find Treasury itself has been working up more opportunities to tax Australians more.

Once again: if you don't have transparency, the government gets away with things that it would not be able to get away with if it were actually being honest with the Australian public about what it's doing. This particular attendance by the minister goes exactly to that point. The government needs to be transparent so that we know what it's doing. It would also be in your own best interests, because it would be very difficult to call you a liar if you actually provided the information so that you could defend yourself and what you're saying. The fact that you keep hiding things and then are found out for lying, I think, is a very sad indictment of the government.

Order! Minister Chisholm?

A point of order: I ask that Senator Ruston withdraw.

I don't think it's unparliamentary. However, for the smooth operation of the chamber, I will ask you to withdraw, Senator Ruston.

At your request, Deputy President, I will withdraw. It does highlight the fact that this government is quite happy to hide things that end up causing incredible distress and uncertainty for some of the most vulnerable people in our community. As Senator Steele-John pointed out, with some of the things the government has been doing—the lack of transparency, the lack of consultation—all it does is to say to Australians who live with disability, 'This government doesn't care about you; as a government, we're happy to leave you in a state of permanent uncertainty,' which only creates distress. You should be ashamed. You should come clean with those documents so Australians can see what you're up to.

I too rise to speak in relation to this matter and raise my concerns regarding transparency. I want to touch on some of the points that both Senator Steele-John and the minister made. Firstly, Senator Steele-John, I acknowledge and deeply respect your ongoing advocacy with respect to these matters. The example you gave of the participant being off the system and then having to go through numerous appeal procedures to get back onto the system is deeply disturbing, to be frank. I hope that person is doing okay. It shouldn't come to that.

I also acknowledge the responsibility that Senator McAllister has with her new portfolio. I note her comments with respect to the new portfolio. I note that she recognises the gravitas and the weight of the responsibility of this portfolio. I also note her comment about engagement with those with lived experience in dealing with the system. I also note her reference to the introduction of the NDIS, and it should be noted that the NDIS was implemented with the support of all parties in this parliament. The coalition certainly supported the introduction of the NDIS and supports the ongoing sustainable operation of the NDIS. There's no question about that.

But what the minister didn't touch upon is what goes to the heart of this matter, and that is transparency. This is one of the largest—if not the largest—social benefit schemes that the Commonwealth legislates and manages. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are impacted by this scheme directly, and millions are impacted indirectly. When you have a scheme of such magnitude, it is incredibly important that there's transparency around fundamental aspects of the scheme, and there can be nothing more fundamental than the financial sustainability of the scheme.

The Senate, in discharging the obligations of its role, sought documents that go to the heart of that financial stability. Yet all we've faced is roadblock after roadblock, constructed by the Albanese Labor government to prevent giving the Australian people, through the Senate, the information they deserve with respect to the financial sustainability of this scheme. This isn't about the senators. This is about us discharging our role on behalf of the Australian people, as the house of review and an upper house, to keep the executive accountable. That's what this goes to.

As Senator Ruston said, the latest research, including a report issued by the Centre for Public Integrity entitled Still shrouded in secrecythat's what the report says: 'still shrouded in secrecy'—indicates that there has been an appalling lack of transparency on behalf of the Albanese Labor government. I want to quote some of these figures, which are quite shocking in many respects and are in this report: the compliance rate for orders for the production of documents has fallen to 32.8 per cent—less than one in three! That's the current performance rate. It's materially less than that of the previous Morrison government in the 46th Parliament. It's fallen from 48.7 per cent to 32.8 per cent. It's collapsed. If you go back a number of decades, it used to be 90 per cent—90 per cent of the orders for the production of documents called for by the Senate, by a majority of the senators sitting in this chamber representing a majority of states. Senators from across the political spectrum, representing all the states and territories, have called for this information, yet the government denies providing that information, on the basis of parliamentary interest immunity.

There's no transparency as to why the release of these documents would, in some way, compromise federal and state relations. I previously asked: 'Did you ask the states whether or not you could release the documents?' I would have thought that would be the first thing you'd do. I've asked, 'Is there any problem, in terms of the states releasing the documents?' They won't even answer that question, so how can they make a substantial argument on parliamentary interest immunity?

I too rise to speak in relation to the attendance by the minister in relation to the NDIS. I thank everyone that's spoken about it, and I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues Senators Ruston and Scarr. I also thank Senator Steele-John for his comments.

When I started in my role as a whip in this chamber, I noticed this regular pattern on a Monday morning in relation to the NDIS. One of the things that struck me was the fierce and relentless advocacy of Senator Steele-John and former senators Hughes and Reynolds in relation to this issue. I thank Senator Steele-John and the former senators absent now from this chamber for their work on something that is critically important, and that's the right for Australians to know what is going on with the NDIS. That's the transparency that we speak of.

They spoke about this throughout the entire 47th Parliament, but here we are again, at the beginning of the 48th Parliament, and those questions have not been answered. Fundamentally, at the core of what we are asking for is basic information around what is happening with this scheme. That shouldn't be very hard to respond to, but what is even more concerning is the secrecy. Why won't this be disclosed? Why are we here every Monday of a sitting period asking this same series of questions? Why does Senator Steele-John have to keep asking these questions? Why did former senators Hughes and Reynolds keep asking these questions? Because we haven't had the answers that we deserve to have.

As Senator Scarr rightly put, we're not asking for ourselves. We're asking for Australians. We are asking for those in the disability sector. We're asking for Australian taxpayers, and we're asking for some of our most vulnerable Australians who are meant to be protected by this scheme.

The coalition wants a strong and sustainable NDIS. We want to ensure that we protect the people that need it, but we also want to make sure that we punish the people that abuse it—those that most egregiously abuse a system that is there to protect some of our most vulnerable and to provide them the dignity and independence that the NDIS should deliver. That's where we stand on this. We want clear answers to the questions that have been asked in this Senate chamber for the past three years. We'd also like an understanding about why you want a process where we are constantly asking these questions with no answers, especially from a prime minister who campaigned, before the 2022 election, on a transparent government—on a government that will tell you what is going on. Anybody that wants to see whether this government is transparent or not just needs to listen to what is happening here this morning and have a look at the Hansard of every other discussion related to this one, because there has been no transparency—none whatsoever.

Senator Steele-John made a comment about planners that I wanted to touch on as well. We were in Senate estimates when this came up, and there was a collective chin drop when we found out that participants are being forced to go through the process—a costly and time-consuming process—of putting together evidence that the NDIS had asked of them in relation to their plans. That is time and energy and resources that should actually be spent on the care of participants spent instead on a report. They provide that report, and guess what? No-one reads it. Yet, if they were not to submit or provide that report, the example that Senator Steele-John provided of someone who lost their plan and would have to fight to get it back would eventuate. Why are we standing by and allowing that? Why are we forcing families who have children with permanent conditions to provide evidence of those conditions year on year or plan on plan? Something that is permanent is not going to change. There is something fundamentally wrong here, and this government needs to explain to us why they won't give us the information that we're seeking, why they won't make this simpler and why they have made hardworking senators in this place rise week after week to get the answers.

Question agreed to.

I'm in continuation from my remarks late last week on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Seeing a GP regularly helps to catch health issues early, before they worsen and escalate, needing more intensive and more costly care. That's why the Albanese Labor government is investing $660 million in a workforce package that will expand the largest GP training program in Australian history. We're training 2,000 new GPs a year by 2028, supporting hundreds of nursing scholarships and helping overseas trained doctors register faster, with 17,000 joining the system in the past two years alone. We've expanded bulk-billing incentives to all Australians and introduced a new incentive for practices that bulk-bill every patient. Bulk-billing is rising again in every state and territory. We're doing this because we know bulk-billing is something that Australian families rely upon; in fact, it's a critical part of our Medicare system.

Our record investment in Medicare restores every dollar the Australian Medical Association says was cut from Medicare through the funding freeze implemented by the previous coalition government. This is a policy about lifting up our nation and ensuring no-one is held back and, of course, no-one is left behind.

We also promised 50 Medicare urgent care clinics, but we delivered 87, and more are on the way—another $658 million to open 50 more clinics nationwide. Five of those will be in my home state of South Australia, with an additional three announced earlier this year, including in my community of Sturt, something that our local MP, Claire Clutterham MP, was a fierce advocate for and very pleased to see announced. These clinics provide free walk-in care seven days a week, taking pressure off emergency departments and saving families time, stress and money.

Over 1.5 million patients have walked through the door of a Medicare urgent care clinic and received the free urgent care they need. I am one of those patients. I've taken both myself and my children to these clinics, instances when we otherwise would have been going to the emergency department. Our Medicare urgent care clinics have filled a much-needed gap in our healthcare system. Now patients all around the country, including parents of young children, just like me, don't have to spend hours in a hospital emergency department. We're building on our historic investment in Medicare to take pressure of hospitals and make free urgent care available to Australians in every community with the launch of 1800MEDICARE, a free nationwide 24/7 health advice line and after-hours GP telehealth service.

Of course, when it comes to women's health, an area of public policy which I have been advocating for my whole parliamentary career, we are providing Australian women with more choice and better treatments at a lower cost. When it comes to women's health, as I've said many, many times in this chamber, you simply do not need to look very far to see where women's pain and symptoms have too often been ignored. Often their pain and symptoms have been outright dismissed. We've seen this with endometriosis. We certainly see it with symptoms of menopause and perimenopause. But we see this right across the spectrum of women's health issues, and that has to change. The consequence of it is that women have been suffering in silence, and they should not have to do so in a modern Australia.

The Senate inquiries we ran in this place last year into maternal health and into menopause and perimenopause helped spark a national conversation about the level of support women were getting and where they were being let down. I am deeply proud that our government has invested in women's health so significantly—some $800 million worth of investments in women's health. This is a massive step change in the way women's health is funded, in the way women's voices are being heard and in the way we have chosen to prioritise these issues within our healthcare system, when women have been ignored and silent for far too long.

We're making contraceptives cheaper and funding more treatments for menopause. Since 1 July, new menopause and perimenopause health assessments have been available under Medicare so that women can receive the holistic care they need from their family GP when they need it. We know that, to have these conversations with your GP, you simply need more time, and that's what this investment achieves. We've also added contraceptives like Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda to the PBS, giving women more choice at a lower cost. For many of the women who use these medications, there is no alternative. The consequences of other medications are too great. We need these medicines on the PBS so that women have the choice to access the medicines that work for them and their bodies. We've also added hormone replacement therapy and IVF medications to the PBS, some of them for the first time in 20 years. For decades and decades and decades there was just simply no action to provide and fund diversity and more choices for women when it came to the PBS. That has changed now.

We're also helping Australian women suffering from endometriosis and complex gynaecological conditions to have access to longer specialist consultations—also covered under Medicare. We've opened Australia's first endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, and we will open an additional 11 clinics to bring the total number to 33 across every state and territory. These clinics do amazing work. I've visited the Thrive Endo Clinic in South Australia. I've met with their patients time and time again, as well as their practitioners. This is life-changing care which is enabling women to not just get the health care they need but also re-enter the workforce. Endometriosis can be debilitating and so can pelvic pain. These clinics are absolutely changing lives. We need more of them and we have made that investment. It's about receiving care which is tailored to your needs as a woman, where you feel listened to, understood and well treated and your pain and symptoms are not dismissed. Women have told me that, before accessing the support from these specialist endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, they had been dismissed and told things like, 'If you have a baby, your endo will go away.' It's nonsense, it's not true, and we need better quality care for these women.

We are also expanding the remit of these clinics to help women with symptoms of perimenopause and menopause. Again, they're not optional parts of a woman's life journey at all. Any woman fortunate enough to reach midlife will go through menopause. So that we simply haven't had appropriate care for women in this stage of life is nonsense. It is not optional for women; good-quality health care and treatment for menopause should not be optional either.

We are determined to build a stronger, fairer healthcare system—one that does not dismiss women's pain, but responds to it with compassion, expertise and the time women need with their GPs. We're strengthening Medicare with real, lasting support for women's health. I am extraordinarily proud of this work and have been extraordinarily proud to advocate for it.

We're also making medicines cheaper than ever before by cutting the maximum PBS co-payment to $25 and expanding 60-day dispensing. We know Australians have saved over $1 billion on scripts under the Albanese Labor government. This is a key cost-of-living measure. We don't want a single Australian to forgo medicine that they need because they cannot afford it, and we know this has happened. Having already slashed the cost of medicine, with the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS in 2023, we are going further. This represents a more than 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of PBS medicines, which will save Australians over $200 million each year—again, delivering real cost-of-living relief for Australians. We are also investing to protect the next generation of Australians from harm, with world-leading vaping reforms and a $350 million crackdown on illegal tobacco, supporting our health and law enforcement agencies.

Finally, we are delivering an extra $1.8 billion to public hospitals next year, bringing our Commonwealth contribution to a record $33.9 billion in 2025-26, and there are further long-term reforms underway. This one-year agreement means Australians will benefit from better funded public hospitals as cooperation builds on long-term, sustainable health-system reform.

From doctors and nurses to public hospitals and urgent care, and from integrity in the system and compliance to cheaper medicines, our government is working to strengthen every part of Medicare. This is what Labor does. We created Medicare. It is part of our legacy, and only a Labor government will continue to protect and strengthen it. This is in stark contrast to the Liberals and the coalition government, who previously cut $50 billion from public hospitals and froze the Medicare rebate. We are building a system which supports Australians with the cost of their health care and which makes sure women's voices are heard—which doesn't dismiss their pain, but actually funds women's health properly and takes these issues seriously.

We are investing in Medicare, but we are also doing what we need to do to strengthen the integrity of it. It is too important for Australians not to, and I commend the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 to the Senate.

The coalition supports Medicare. Funding into Medicare increased every single year under the former coalition government. Every single year that the coalition was in government before the election of the Albanese government, year on year, there was an increase in Medicare funding. The first year we came into power, there had been $18.6 billion of funding under Labor in 2012-13. When the coalition left office in 2021-22, the funding was $30 billion. Under Labor in 2012-13, the figure was $18.6 billion and under the coalition, in its last term before the election, it had increased to $30 billion—an increase of nearly $12 billion through the terms of three coalition governments. They're the facts.

We have a system in our country where both parties of government support Medicare, and rightly so—absolutely. I should note also that Medicare bulk-billing was higher under the coalition than it was under the last term of the Labor government. It was actually higher under the coalition. Bulk-billing rose consistently across our entire term in government. It rose to 86 per cent before the COVID pandemic, and it was a record high of 88 per cent when we left government. In the coalition's last year in government, there were 167.2 million free GP services delivered, and this is 61 million more than the previous Labor government. I'd forgive those listening to the debate if they were surprised by those facts because of the rhetoric coming from the other side, but the fact of the matter is that the coalition supports Medicare and has always supported and always will support Medicare as being a foundational principle of making sure Australian people have access to the medical services which they expect in this country.

The coalition also has a proud record of supporting a strong PBS in this country. In government, we made 2,900 new or amended listings on the PBS to expand access to cheaper medicines. I know that some of the achievements which mean the most to representatives in the other place and the senators in this place is when they have advocated on behalf of constituents and their families who have sought the listing of a PBS medication where it has been life-changing, when families have been faced with the awful predicament where there's only one drug available to treat a chronic condition and, without it being listed on the PBS, it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and they simply wouldn't be able to afford it. I would like to place on the record in this context—and I think it's appropriate to do so—my gratitude to Senator Ruston and one of her advisers, Lilli Balaam, for the work that they've done when Senator Ruston was health minister and now in her existing role in relation to getting drugs listed on the PBS and for listening to representations I've made in that regard. It's greatly appreciated.

So the coalition has a proud record of supporting the PBS. During our last term in government, the funding for Medicare increased from $18.6 billion, when we took government back in 2012-13, to $30 billion, in 2021-22. So don't accept this propaganda, this nonsense, about the coalition not supporting Medicare, because all of the facts are to the contrary, including the money that's been spent, that increase between $18 billion to $30 billion. Those are the facts, so don't listen to the political rhetoric and the propaganda.

The coalition has also supported and focused on mental health and suicide prevention, something very close to my heart and something which is extraordinarily important to the people of Queensland. I particularly refer to those regions of Queensland which don't have access to mental health specialists and practitioners. In many cases, a few hours drive out of Brisbane, there are areas which have unacceptable rates of suicide and attempted suicide and simply do not have the practitioners on the ground to provide the services people in those areas need. I've spoken to families who've been impacted in that regard, and those discussions are absolutely heartbreaking.

In that context, I note that the Labor government took away Medicare mental health sessions from 372,000 vulnerable Australians, and in that regard they went against the advice of their own review and all of the Australian peak mental health experts. They cut away those mental health sessions, and they were critically important to some of our most vulnerable Australians struggling with mental health issues. That was a great tragedy, and I would like to see those reinstated. I dearly would, because I think that those are the things which make such a difference to people's lives.

Data from the Productivity Commission in that regard shows that access to Medicare mental health support has fallen to the lowest point in at least 10 years. We've gotten to the lowest point of access to Medicare mental health support. That's a shocking state of affairs. We all know—and people listening to this debate will know—of people struggling with mental health issues who then, when they seek help, are faced with awful waiting times to see the specialists they need to see. It's heartbreaking.

Under Labor, mental health has been completely neglected. They cut the Medicare subsidised mental health sessions in half. They abolished the National Mental Health Commission. The chair of Mental Health Australia even resigned out of frustration with the Prime Minister's neglect of mental health and refusal to meet with him. This is a crisis. There's a mental health crisis in our country impacting so many vulnerable young people in our society. This should be one of the greatest priorities of government, to try and deliver services to the people most in need in this regard.

I also refer to the Prime Minister's Medicare election promise. You all heard this many times. The Prime Minister said:

Under Labor all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card

When that statement was trotted out, he would wave the Medicare card, the credit card and whatever else around. But, if you want to know what's really happening, one of the things to do is to look out for the incoming brief that the actual department prepares and submits to an incoming government, whoever wins the election. The department advises the government of the day. The department advises the government of the day, whoever wins the election, on what's actually happening on the ground.

This is what the government's own incoming government brief said. This is what the Department of Health told them. This had to be released under FOI. Someone had to go through the Freedom of Information Act process to get the truth from the government department. It estimated that a quarter—23 per cent; near enough to a quarter—of GP clinics across Australia will not bulk-bill, despite all of the Albanese Labor government's promises. That's what the specialists in the department said in the incoming brief to the government, after the Prime Minister had run around the country waving his Medicare card around and saying, 'Under Labor all you'll need is your Medicare card, not your credit card.' The government's own department, in considering the promises made by the Labor prime minister during an election campaign, actually belled the cat in relation to the issue and said that a quarter—near enough; 23 per cent—of GP clinics across Australia will not bulk-bill, despite all of the Albanese Labor government's promises.

This data from the health department shows that millions of Australians will still need their credit card—notwithstanding what the Prime Minister promised the Australian people during the course of an election campaign. What the Prime Minister said during the course of an election campaign is totally disconnected from the reality the Australian people are going to face now that the Labor government has been re-elected. The reality is going to be different from the election campaign. This data from the health department says that millions of Australians will still need their credit card, as well as their Medicare card, when they go to see a GP. Nearly a quarter of medical clinics will not bulk-bill, notwithstanding the promises and statements made by the Prime Minister.

The worst part of all this is that, when an Australian's credit card is charged to see their GP, they're being charged the highest out-of-pocket costs on record under Labor. At a time when they can least afford it, Australians are forking out more than they've ever had to before, from their own pocket, to access essential health care. It is quite appalling that the Prime Minister made those representations during the course of an election campaign and then the incoming brief—it's not like there was 12 months that passed between when the Prime Minister made these statements and when the advice was received from the department. It's not as if there was a change of circumstances that one could reasonably accept. These promises were made by the Prime Minister during an election campaign, and the incoming brief from the Department of Health, which knows the data and the reality, said: 'It can't be achieved. You're not going to achieve what you promised.' Barely a month had passed. That's the reality. This calls into serious question Labor's claims that by 2030 nine out of 10 visits to the GP will be free. How does that stack up if the department's actually saying that 23 per cent of GP clinics aren't going to bulk-bill? How do you achieve that figure of nine out of 10 visits to the GP being free? It's impossible.

The Prime Minister needs to be transparent with the Australian people: was this advice provided to the government prior to the election? Notwithstanding the Labor government's promises, did the Prime Minister know that the department of health—which knows the data, which understands the process and which is the best to give these estimates—estimated that 23 per cent of GP clinics across Australia would not bulk-bill? Did the Prime Minister know that? Did the relevant minister know that? And, if not, why not? Why not get the data and opinion from the relevant government department before you make the promise? Isn't that the way it should work? Get the data and get the opinions of the senior public servants who are across the system before you go out to the Australian people and make a promise.

Now we're in this situation where there's a complete disconnect between the promise that was made by the Prime Minister, waving around his Medicare card, and the reality as told to us by the public servants, who are the ones in charge of managing the system and who are at the coalface in terms of managing the health system. That's the situation we have.

The reality of Medicare under Labor is that Labor promised to strengthen Medicare, but it's only been weakened since they were elected. Medicare bulk-billing fell by 11 per cent under Labor. Under Labor, GP bulk-billing has fallen from 88 per cent—in the last year of the coalition government, bulk-billing was at 88 per cent—to 77 per cent. They want to pat themselves on the back as if they've achieved some great things in this space when, under their watch, there was a material decline in bulk-billing. That translates to 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits in the past year alone under Labor.

Australians are now paying 45 per cent more of the cost to see a GP from their own pockets, and out-of-pocket costs have literally reached the highest level on record under Labor. 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—notwithstanding what the Prime Minister promised during the course of the last election campaign—and they're being charged the highest amount of out-of-pocket costs on record. The sad reality of our healthcare system under Labor is that it has forced more than 1.5 million Australians to avoid seeing their GP because they can't afford to. It's a devastating statistic, which makes it so unsatisfactory to see Labor standing up here in this chamber patting themselves on the back.

In the months leading up to this year's May election, I spent countless hours out in the Victorian community knocking on hundreds and hundreds of doors and speaking to hundreds and hundreds of people on the phone, talking to them about what their concerns where, what their experiences were and what they want to see for our country. I spoke to parents and young people, and to those juggling jobs and care. I spoke to older Australians who have worked throughout their lives and who now need more support to access the care they deserve. I spoke to students navigating their futures and to migrants making Australia home.

What I heard was really clear. People weren't asking for the world; they were asking for something much more fundamental—something that should be a given in a country like ours. They wanted a government that listens, one that focuses on what really matters: health care, housing, education and a fair go. That's exactly why we went to the election with a clear plan to protect and expand Medicare, putting it at the front and centre of our agenda. And Australians responded resoundingly at the ballot box, re-electing a Labor government committed to delivering on these promises. I'm proud to be a part of that government.

One of the issues raised with me time and time again across Victoria, no matter their background or circumstance, was health care. Parents wanted to know if they could get their kids to a local GP when they had a fever, a sprain or a worrying rash. Women bravely shared their stories of long, painful journeys through the healthcare system, searching for answers that never came quickly or easily. Older Australians told me of the frustration and anxiety that come from not being able to afford care or get a timely health appointment. These are stories along with statistics. They are the reality for millions of Australians, and I want to thank the people who shared their stories with me over the last three to four months. It's really not easy to open up to someone that you've just met when you're talking to them on their front door step or on the phone. It is a privilege to hear these stories, but it is also a responsibility that we must act on them. That is exactly what this government is doing. Labor created Medicare, we protected it, and now we are strengthening it for the future.

When we came to government in 2022, it had never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. After nearly a decade of cuts and neglect under the coalition, bulk-billing was in freefall, general practice was on the brink, people were delaying important treatment that they needed, they were waiting longer, they were paying more and some were walking away from the system altogether, giving up. Strengthening Medicare was at the heart of our election commitment, and it remains a top priority for our government. In just two years, we've delivered the largest investment in Medicare since it was established more than 40 years ago—a whopping $8.5 billion to strengthen bulk-billing, boost the workforce and improve access to urgent care. Let me share what that means on the ground. We promised to open 50 Medicare urgent care clinics. We've already delivered 87 urgent care clinics, well ahead of schedule. And we are not stopping there; we're opening another 50 clinics, bringing the total to 137 across the country. That means four in five Australians will now live within 20 minutes of one of these clinics. These clinics are open seven days a week with extended hours, no appointment necessary. They accept walk-ins and they don't need a credit card—just your Medicare card.

They are already having a huge impact. Over 1.5 million people have walked through the doors of a Medicare urgent care clinic across the country and received the urgent care that they need, without the wait at a busy hospital emergency department, reducing the strain on our public health system. I've seen this impact personally. Earlier this year, my dad was visiting Melbourne from Queensland when he came down with a nasty ear infection on a public holiday weekend. Rather than having him wait for hours at a hospital emergency department, the urgent care clinic near my house meant he could see a doctor quickly, get the urgent treatment that he needed and enjoy the rest of his day with us. These are the kinds of services that we hope we never need but are grateful to have when we do.

It's easy to reduce healthcare reform to lines in a budget. But the real value is what it means to people's lives—not having to wait in pain, not having to choose between groceries and a GP visit, not having to rush to an emergency room and then wait for hours because there's nowhere else to go. That's the kind of stress and uncertainty no-one should have to face. That is what good government is for, to make sure essential services are there when people need them, to provide security in uncertain moments and to ensure that care is available not just for some but for everyone. This is how Labor governs—building a country where dignity, fairness and compassion aren't just values that we talk about but principles that we put into action.

But we know that urgent care is only part of the solution. Australians need regular ongoing access to high-quality affordable care. That's why we're reversing the damage done to Medicare by the coalition's funding freeze and we're going further. In just two years we've delivered the two largest increases to Medicare rebates in 30 years. As a result, bulk-billing rates are on the rise again in every single state and territory. We're also making a transformative change to bulk-billing incentives. For the first time, we're expanding them to all Australians, and we've created a new incentive for practices that bulk-bill every patient. This will mean nine in 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030, and the number of fully bulk-billed clinics will triple to around 4,800 nationally. It's not just good health policy; it's smart economic policy.

Notwithstanding what you heard earlier from Senator Scarr, our government has a track record in health. And protecting Medicare is in stark contrast to those opposite, and I think the Australian people know it.

We all know that regular check-ups, preventive care and early intervention can catch issues before they become crises. It keeps people out of hospital and in their communities, living healthy and productive lives. We know these reforms aren't something that can be willed into existence with the wave of a magic wand. This is not just feel-good policy; it is important for a productive and healthy society.

We are conscious, always, of the impact these reforms will have on the workforce, and we know that, to achieve the level of bulk-billing that we aspire to, we need more doctors. That's why we're also investing $662 million in the largest GP training program in Australian history. By 2028 we'll be funding 2,000 new GP trainees every year. We're expanding our capacity with overseas trained doctors, too. Seventeen thousand new doctors have joined the Australian system in the last two years—more than at any time in the past decade. We're not just filling the gaps; we're building a future-ready healthcare workforce.

For Australians managing chronic conditions or filling prescriptions every month, we're delivering real cost-of-living relief. In 2023 we made the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, reducing maximum script prices by more than 20 per cent, saving Australians over $200 million a year. We've made around 300 medicines available on a 60-day prescription, and we've lowered the PBS safety net threshold, saving Australians more than a billion dollars on their medications so far—over $1 billion in savings. That's more money in the pockets of Australians. And, from January, you won't pay more than $25 for a PBS script. For pensioners and concession card holders, the price of a script will be frozen at $7.70 until 2030. The last time medicines were $25, it was 2004; we were all watching the Athens Olympics and the classic Jets banger 'Are you gonna be my girl' won single of the year at the ARIA Awards.

When people can afford their medicine, they take it. When they take their medicine, they stay well. Making medicines more affordable and accessible means people can stick to their treatment plans, manage chronic conditions more effectively and avoid preventable hospital visits down the line. When they stay well, they live better and they live longer. It sounds very simple because it is, and it's one of the most powerful ways we can build a fairer health system—a system where no-one misses out on the care that they need because of their income or circumstances; a system that doesn't just treat illness but also protects dignity, because, in a country like ours, no-one should be left behind.

We're also delivering record funding for public hospitals, with an additional $1.8 billion next year alone, bringing the Commonwealth contributions to over $33.9 billion in the year 2025-26. That's a 12 per cent increase year on year—and a stark contrast to the coalition, who cut $50 billion from our hospitals when they were in office. This investment will support the long-term reform of our health system, in partnership with the states and territories, because public hospitals shouldn't be political footballs. They should be at the centre of care, staffed and resourced to meet the growing needs of our population.

Finally, we are acting boldly on the health challenges of today, especially when it comes to young people. We've introduced world-leading reforms on vaping to protect children and adolescents, and the results are already coming in. The Cancer Council's Generation Vape study showed that vaping rates amongst 14- to 17-year-olds are on the decline. We're also cracking down on the black market in illegal tobacco, investing over $350 million to give law enforcement the tools that they need to fight criminal activity and protect public health.

All of this—the clinics, the doctors, the cheaper medicines and the cracking down on vaping—forms part of a single, simple mission: to restore fairness, equity and dignity to the healthcare system. It's a promise—a uniquely Australian promise—that we look after one another, especially in moments of vulnerability. It reflects the best of who we are—that, no matter your income, your background or your postcode, you should be able to see a doctor and get the care you need when you need it in your community.

It was a Labor government that built Medicare, against fierce resistance, because we believed then, as we do now, that access to health care should be universal. Access to health care should not be something reserved for the wealthy or the well-connected. Labor created Medicare, we defended it from cuts and attacks, and now, under the Albanese Labor government, we are strengthening it and expanding it for the future, because Medicare isn't just a health system; it is one of the defining achievements of modern Australia, a cornerstone of our social compact, which is why it was also a cornerstone of our election campaign and Australians roundly supported our agenda. It says something profound about the kind of country we are and the kind of future that we want to build—fairness, compassion and a commitment to equality. That is the Labor difference. We don't just talk about fairness; we legislate it, we fund it and, importantly, we deliver it. And we don't just protect Medicare; we fight for it and we make it better, because we believe health care is a right and not a privilege.

Under Labor, the promise of Medicare will endure, and we will never stop working to ensure that promises reach every Australian not just in name but in reality. Labor made that promise decades ago, and we will continue to deliver it. Under this government, we're making good on it again through this bill. We are investing in health care not as a luxury but as a right; we are rebuilding Medicare not for headlines but for people; and we are doing the work day in, day out to ensure no Australian is left behind when it matters most.

I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I alert the chamber now that my contribution won't be excessively long today, but I do think that it is very important to put things on the record because—let's face it—this bill in itself is not highly controversial but the issue of health care in Australia is a very contentious one.

The bill specifically seeks to strengthen the integrity of our health system. It implements recommendations from the Philip review to improve compliance, to deter misconduct and to protect the integrity of programs like the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—all noble objectives. The coalition supports this legislation. They are sensible reforms. They respond to real challenges. They improve the detection, oversight and enforcement that are necessary to ensure that our health system remains fair, accountable and sustainable.

So this is an important bill, but—let's face it—this is compliance legislation. It's important, but it's kind of dull and it's uncontroversial. So why are we all up here talking about it? Because we cannot avoid the broader reality. While the government is bringing forward this compliance legislation—this entirely uncontroversial and rather dull but important compliance legislation—Australians are struggling with the cost and accessibility of basic health care, and that's why it is so important to speak about it in the chamber today.

Those who are listening to this debate up in the gallery and via the broadcast, had they just listened to the Labor contribution, would have been subjected to the most extraordinary spin, which is not dissimilar to what we heard during the election campaign. As much as I respect Senator Darmanin and her contribution today, I've got to say, there needs to be a correction of some of the facts. Senator Darmanin said, 'When Labor came to government in 2022, it had never been more expensive nor more difficult to see a doctor.' Well, that is not true. In fact, it had never been more difficult or more expensive to see a doctor than when Labor was in office. It got worse over the last three years. GP bulk-billing was at its highest level under a coalition government. It was at 88 per cent. Under a Labor government, the 'great champions of Medicare', it fell to 77 per cent—on their watch. In the past year, there were 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits. That's not marginal change; that's a system under pressure. And I'll bet you that the people that are sitting up in the gallery today will nod along—it has become harder and it has become more expensive to see a GP in the last three years. Australians are now paying 45 per cent more of the cost to see a GP from their own pocket. Out-of-pocket costs are now, under a Labor government, the highest on record.

Last year, more than 1.5 million Australians actually avoided seeing their GP because they couldn't afford it. In a cost-of-living crisis, they traded away their health for putting food on the table. That's what happened under a Labor government. This isn't just coalition commentary and this isn't just some sort of convenient narrative; the government's own data told us this. And it's not just a policy issue, is it? This isn't just about dollars and cents; this is now a public health risk. Despite all of this, the Albanese government has continually relied on spin when it comes to health care. Just two months ago, we saw the Prime Minister endlessly, over and over again, promise to strengthen Medicare, as he waved his Medicare card around. He said that you won't need to rely on a credit card, because you'll have a Medicare card. What nonsense! How many Australians still rely not just on a Medicare card but on their credit card? How many people need their credit card? How many people are suffering because they will not go to a doctor, because they cannot afford to under this government?

Why won't the Prime Minister be honest with Australians about the state of bulk-billing in Australia? The government are completely out of touch with the reality of the pressures that Australians are facing every day. The fact is that Medicare bulk-billing was 11 per cent higher under a coalition government. It's an inconvenient truth, but it is a truth nonetheless, which the Labor government simply will not mention.

Under a coalition government, Medicare funding increased year on year—again, another inconvenient truth. It increased year on year because of our commitment to a strong and sustainable Medicare system. We introduced Medicare subsidised telehealth services during COVID. Initially they were temporary, but telehealth services have proved popular and now they've been made permanent for many services, and that's expanded access for people in regional areas. If it weren't for the coalition, that would not have happened. The coalition invested in primary health networks and GP clinics, especially in remote communities, which have found it so hard to access quality health care in the past. We've also supported the need for urgent care clinics. Importantly, the coalition legislated a guarantee of Medicare and the PBS, enshrining that ongoing funding into law, a profoundly important change that should give comfort to every single Australian that the coalition is on the side of Medicare and the PBS, and that we are on the side of every Australian who needs and deserves quality health care. That's a record of action; it's not a record of spin.

Compare that to what Australians have seen today: a rise in unaffordable health care over the past three years directly because of decisions this government has made. The Prime Minister has made a lot of promises. He made a lot of promises at the election, and the coalition will be watching this situation very closely every single day to ensure that every single one of those promises is met. Let's be clear about exactly what this bill does. It strengthens the administrative tools that are needed to protect the integrity of the health system. It targets fraud—that's a good thing. It improves the ability of government agencies to enforce compliance—again terrific. They were the objective the coalition supports. That is entirely uncontroversial. But the bill does not address the affordability crisis that's currently facing families, pensioners and patients in regional Australia. In other words, it fixes the back office, but it doesn't fix the front door of the health system. Labor promised to fix Medicare. They promised to strengthen Medicare. Instead GP bulk-billing has fallen, and Australians are paying the highest out-of-pocket amount on record.

The coalition will support the bill because we understand and believe that all Australians deserve timely and affordable access to the health care that they need. Of course we will. But we also believe that Medicare must work for patients, not just for compliance departments and not just for bureaucrats. Australians deserve more than slogans. They deserve so much more than slogans when it comes to their health care. They deserve more than watching a Prime Minister wave about a Medicare card and call it a promise. They deserve to be able to go to a GP appointment with only their Medicare card, as Labor has promised. By the time we get to the next election, if they have not delivered on that promise, we will hold them to account. I hope that the electorate will too; otherwise it says we're happy to be lied to by Labor. I commend this bill, but I condemn the Albanese government for its spin over substance and for its damaging record on Medicare.

I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill demonstrates yet again a clear truth in how most policies work in our country. The Liberals and Nationals, either intentionally or by their own incompetence, create a crisis, and Labor comes in to clean it up and clean their mess up. That's exactly what has happened with health care. Under the previous government, Medicare faced nearly a decade of neglect and deliberate undermining. Australians watched bulk-billing rates collapse, Medicare rebates remain frozen and our healthcare system stretched to the breaking point.

When we came to office in 2022, Australians found it harder and more expensive than ever to see a doctor. Families faced impossible choices between health care and essential bills. Hospitals across Australia felt the pressure of chronic underinvestment, starved by the Liberals' relentless cuts. $50 billion—remember that figure. $50 billion is what the Liberal and National coalition ripped out from public hospitals. Those cuts weren't just numbers on a spreadsheet; they had real, devastating consequences for Australians. It meant fewer nurses on the wards. It meant regional hospitals shutting down services. It meant cancer patients waiting longer for life-saving treatment. It meant emergency departments overflowing, parents waiting through the night with sick kids, and elderly Australians left in pain because there weren't enough staff or beds to help them. In some communities those cuts literally cost lives.

When you strip $50 billion from public hospitals, you are not just cutting dollars; you are cutting care, you are cutting staff, you are cutting hope for families who depend on the public health system. And it wasn't an accident. It was a deliberate ideological decision from a coalition government that has always hated Medicare. This was the coalition's legacy: cuts, neglect and disregard for Australians' fundamental healthcare needs. That's why Labor is reversing those cuts. Next year alone we are delivering an additional $1.8 billion in funding for public hospitals and health services. In 2025-26, the Commonwealth funding for state run hospitals will reach a record of $33.91 billion—year on year growth of 12 per cent. This isn't just restoring what was lost; it's building a stronger, fairer and more resilient hospital system for the future.

We came into office with a clear commitment to revive and strengthen Medicare, a commitment Australians decisively endorsed at the ballot box. We are delivering the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation more than 40 years ago. This $8.5 billion investment will deliver more bulk-billed GP visits, thousands more doctors, hundreds of nursing scholarships and significant improvements to patient care. For the first time, Labor is expanding bulk-billing incentives to all Australians, not just children or concession card holders, and creating a new incentive for practices that bulk-bill every patient. By 2030, nine out of every 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed and fully bulk-billed practices will triple nationwide to around 4,800.

Already our investment has delivered an additional six million bulk-billed GP visits in just over a year. This has also been recognised by healthcare professionals around the country. Associate Professor Magdalena Simonis from Victoria, from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, acknowledged this investment earlier this year—contrary to what people say across the way, these are the facts. She said:

… this injection of funds into general practice makes good sense after such a long period of neglect from governments …

Dr Edwin Kruys from Queensland described this as a 'much-needed boost to general practice'. Dr Tim Senior, from the RACGP Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health faculty, said:

This is particularly welcome in … practices serving socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, where many people can't afford co-payments.

Labor values the healthcare professionals in this country and will be supporting their needs head on. We're funding Australia's largest ever GP training program—2,000 new GP trainees each year by 2028. Additionally, an extra 17,000 overseas trained doctors have joined our healthcare system over the past two years, more than at any other time in the last decade.

Then, of course, we've got our Medicare urgent care clinics. I had the opportunity to go out to Lindsay and to Penrith to visit one of the Medicare urgent care clinics and I spoke to a number of the patients and the parents bringing young children there. They were so delighted to see this opportunity, to make sure they get quick assistance to their families. At the election before last, Labor promised 50 Medicare urgent care clinics. Did we deliver 50? No, we delivered 87. Over 1.5 million Australians received urgent care through these clinics as a result of the overperformance of the outcome that we said we'd deliver—87 new clinics rather than the 50 originally projected. That has reduced pressure on emergency departments. They've filled a critical gap in our health system for parents, young children and elderly Australians who would otherwise spend hours waiting in a hospital emergency department. They're open seven days a week with extended hours, and they accept walk-ins. All you need is your Medicare card, not a credit card.

And it's not stopping there. The Albanese government is also making the biggest investment in mental health care that Australia has seen in decades—again, contrary to what those opposite want to say about mental health. We're investing $1 billion to make mental health care more accessible, more affordable and more tailored to the needs of Australians. This includes $225 million to build or upgrade 31 new Medicare mental health centres. Another $200 million will expand and strengthen headspace services for young people, because we know they are the front line of the mental health crisis. And $500 million will go to 20 youth specialist care centres to support young people with complex needs.

Mental health experts have welcomed this initiative, contrary to what those opposite would have you believe—the real experts, such as Patrick McGorry, one of Australia's leading psychiatrists, who called it a groundbreaking commitment that will fundamentally improve access to youth and mental health care. Carolyn Nikoloski, the CEO of Mental Health Australia, said, 'It will fundamentally increase access to free mental health support across the country.' Those are the facts and the important initiatives from those that know. That's what this investment is about—real care, where and when people need it.

Our government has significantly reduced medicine costs as well. Australians have already saved over a billion dollars because we delivered the largest price cuts in the history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Now PBS scripts will cost no more than $25, saving Australians over $200 million a year. Of course, we didn't stop there. We made around 300 medicines available on a 60-day prescription, saving patients even more by halving the number of pharmacy visits they need. And remember what those opposite did? They opposed these sorts of initiatives that made medicines cheaper for so many millions of Australians—those that are in need and all Australians that need to have their cost of living reduced. We also lowered the PBS safety net threshold, which means that families and pensioners reach cheaper medicines sooner. These are practical, immediate savings for households already under cost-of-living pressure.

That contrast with the coalition could not be clearer. Their record was to freeze Medicare rebates, cut $50 billion from hospitals, oppose cheaper medicines and consistently vote against measures making health care cheaper and more accessible. Even now, in opposition, they continue to oppose bulk-billing incentives, urgent care clinics and essential cost-of-living measures. Their own words highlight their intentions. Let's take a quick look down memory lane. In the seventies, you had prominent Liberal figures like Billy Snedden saying, 'We will fight this scheme continuously, and in the end we will defeat it.' In 1984, John Howard declared that he would stab Medicare in the guts. You don't even have to travel back that far. In 2015, Anne Ruston said that Medicare wasn't sustainable, and, earlier in 2014, she said that the credit card is maxed out on universal health care. That's their view. That's their consistent view. That's their opposition to Medicare. If it were up to them, the 'universal' would be stripped out of 'universal health care'. Let's not forget: Labor's investment restores every single dollar that the Australian Medical Association says was stripped from Medicare through the coalition's rebate freeze. We are rebuilding what those opposite tore down.

Labor understands that Medicare is fundamental to Australian identity. It represents the promise that health care is a right, not a privilege reserved only for those who can afford it. This bill continues Labor's mission to protect and strengthen Medicare. It shortens the timeframe for bulk-billing claims so that the system runs more smoothly and with greater integrity. It strengthens investigative powers so that, when serious fraud or noncompliance is suspected, we can act faster and more effectively. It streamlines the pharmacy approval process so communities can access essential medicines more quickly. And it reinforces our vaping and tobacco reforms, protecting young people from harmful and addictive products.

We know those reforms are working. The latest research from the Cancer Council's Generation Vape study shows that the number of young people aged 14 to 17 who vape is already in decline. We're investing over $350 million to crack down on the illegal tobacco trade, giving law enforcement the resources they need to fight back against criminal networks. It's another step in ensuring Medicare is stronger, more sustainable and more effective for generations to come, because Medicare is more than just a policy; it's part of who we are as Australians. It represents the simple, powerful belief that health care is a right, not a privilege. It means that, whether you live in a remote community or a capital city, or whether you are a pensioner, a patient or a student, you deserve affordable, high-quality care without going broke to pay for it—and that's what Labor has always stood for.

Let's be clear. This bill is about making Medicare stronger. It's about giving Australians confidence that when you need care, it will be there. It's about saying, once again, that this country will never go back to the days when you needed both a Medicare card and a credit card just to see your GP. I say this not just as a legislator but as someone who has seen firsthand what Medicare means for ordinary Australians. I met those parents in regional towns that told me that without bulk-billing— (Time expired)

I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Medicare and our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are the cornerstones of Australia's world-class health system. Indeed, they are the envy of the world, and they light the way for what a fairer, more decent health system can look like. That's why the Albanese government has committed to making the single largest investment in Medicare in this nation's history: an injection of $8.5 billion. That record funding for Medicare and the PBS is an example of this government living its values: a belief in a universal healthcare system.

This massive funding injection will increase the number of bulk-billed doctor visits every year. It will fund more doctors and nurses to care for our growing and ageing population. Our investment will also reduce the out-of-pocket cost for Australian families—something that skyrocketed under the former coalition government. In fact, Labor's record funding for Medicare will mean nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030.

We have also committed to delivering 50 additional urgent care clinics across the country. Already 1.2 million Australians have been treated at over 87 urgent care clinics nationwide—over a million patients! In my home state of Queensland, there are 10 additional urgent care clinics being delivered under this government. These are fully bulk-billed walk-in GP clinics that are free to attend. In Queensland, our urgent care clinics have already treated hundreds of thousands of sick patients.

Last month I visited one of our busiest urgent care clinics in Morayfield in the federal seat of Longman. While I was in the urgent care clinic, the clinic was busy treating little kids, elderly patients and workers seeking treatment. These are the patients who would otherwise be forced to find a pay-for-service GP appointment or wait a long time for a bulk-billed appointment at another clinic. Every one of those patients arriving at the Morayfield urgent care clinic came with just their Medicare card, and they were entitled to world-class care from a community GP in their local area. Earlier this year I travelled to the seat of Groom and visited our urgent care clinic in Toowoomba. The Toowoomba urgent care clinic has delivered over 6000 bulk-billed GP appointments to Toowoomba locals. With a shortage of GPs and bulk-billed appointments in regional Queensland thanks to a decade of inaction by those opposite, the urgent care clinic is turning around that tide.

We have worked hard as a Labor government to reverse a decade of underfunding by those opposite, but wait, there is more. In addition to Labor's urgent care clinics Labor has committed over $255 million for 31 new Medicare mental health clinics. From 1 July, just earlier this month, a number of those new Medicare mental health clinic services commenced across Queensland. We now have Medicare mental health clinics funded by this Labor government operating in locations including Caboolture, the Sunshine Coast, Redcliffe, Bardon, Rockhampton, Townsville, Redlands, Strathpine, Logan and many more. These are locations where patients can get much-needed walk-in mental health appointments, taking pressure off our hospital system, which particularly right now is under a lot of pressure in Queensland, as we can see in the local newspapers. I look forward to joining the assistant minister in the near future to officially open some of these bulk-billed Medicare mental health clinics, and in doing so we can get the word out about these great new clinics.

This side of the chamber know the job is never done, and we are always fighting to secure the future of our world-class health system as we continue to improve it. Labor will always fight to protect its future, a commitment we took to the last election. When Labor came to government in 2022 it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor in Australia. Bulk-billing rates were in freefall after a decade of coalition cuts and neglect to Medicare. Australians chose to elect the party that created Medicare, Labor, to stand up and defend our health system. In November 2021, six months before the 2022 election, the financial viability of general practice was in serious trouble after the coalition's six-year freeze on Medicare rebates. Labor has delivered the two largest increases to Medicare rebates in 30 years. We have increased Medicare rebates by more in just two years than the former government did in nine long years. As a result of this record investment, bulk-billing has started to rise again for every state and territory, delivering an additional six million free visits to the GP in just 12 months.

We must always fight against attacks on Medicare from those opposite, who believe access to Medicare should depend on your credit card, not your Medicare card, and that is a commitment that Labor took to the Australian people—that we would always stand up and protect Medicare and the PBS from ideological attacks from those opposite, who seek to get their hands on it and rip away vital funding from our health system. But also, just as importantly, we must protect Medicare and the PBS from bad actors who would—and some do—seek to defraud our health system and take advantage of vulnerable patients. Part of that is continually enhancing and modernising Medicare and protecting it from those bad actors to ensure Australia remains among the healthiest countries in the world. The amendments in this bill will help protect the integrity and the ongoing sustainability of Australia's health benefits scheme, including the MBS, the PBS and the CDBS. This bill strengthens the powers of Medicare to investigate incorrect billing and fraud in the system. Medicare costs, as we know, billions of dollars annually, and we know that fraudulent behaviours, incorrect billing and overpayments are a drain on public money and reduce the funding available for those patients who need it the most. This bill also introduces tougher penalties for those making fraudulent Medicare claims, which take vital funding away from much-needed primary care in our local communities. Stronger integrity measures like those in this bill create a more level playing field for all users, which makes our record funding go even further.

It also ensures that we are focusing on patient care and the right appointment and the right service in the right location for the right patient, not the other way around—having appointments or claims driving care. Where patients are having their appointments cut short or are required to come back for a new chargeable appointment when they are already there receiving care, this comes at an additional expense for taxpayers and at a cost in time for both the patient and the practitioner. The Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance, undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip—the Philip review—specifically referred to the need to ensure patient safety in all aspects of health services. This must include a review of billing practices to ensure ease of visitation for patients, to keep health care affordable, to reduce duplication of appointments and to cut down on wait times for families.

But, in saying this, I want to be very clear: the measures introduced in this bill today will, importantly, directly impact upon only a small percentage of practitioners and businesses—those engaged in noncompliance and fraud. Australians know that the overwhelming majority of our doctors and other healthcare professionals are decent, honest and hardworking and comply with the Medicare rules and guidelines. This system protects those practitioners doing the right thing and takes action against those doing the wrong thing. Overall, patients and practitioners can expect to benefit from better protected health schemes that will provide more secure access to safe, quality services closer to home. This bill focuses on incentivising the good behaviour amongst our hardworking medical practitioners and cracking down on the bad behaviour. Improving patient integrity, deterring misconduct and reducing fraudulent claims is critical to ensuring that Australia can afford Medicare. Strengthening Medicare also means safeguarding the taxpayer funds that underpin it, and this government is committed to that task. I support the important amendments in this bill to detect, respond to and investigate instances of misconduct, fraud and noncompliance, because it's Australian families that are paying the price for the misuses and abuses of our system

But, as Labor people, we know that the job is never done and we must always fight to protect and secure Medicare's future and to continue to improve it. As a new mum, I have been so proud of the reforms delivered by Labor to deliver incentives to increase bulk billing rates for children. When you are holding a sick child in your arms, the last thing you need to be thinking about is whether you can afford for your child to get the treatment they need. I am so proud that bulk-billing rates have increased for children under Labor. We know that getting care closer to home with a trusted medical professional leads to better health outcomes for our littlest people. We know that Medicare ensures that, no matter where you live, how much you earn or what's happening in your wallet, you and your loved ones can get the care you need under Labor, and Labor will always fight to strengthen Medicare.

I rise today to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025, and I note that this is not my first speech. When I think about Medicare, three names come to mind: Whitlam, Hawke and Albanese—three Labor legends who have championed universal health care. It was Labor who established Medicare in Australia over 40 years ago, and only Labor will protect and strengthen it.

The outcome of the 2025 election couldn't have been clearer. The Australian people sent a clear message: they will not stand for cuts to or degradation of our green and gold national icon. When we came to government in 2022, it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall and, after a decade of cuts and neglect to Medicare, people were forgoing healthcare to make ends meet. This was not okay. That's why strengthening Medicare was a key focus of Labor's 2025 election campaign. When I was on the doors in Tassie's north-west during the campaign, I heard time and time again about the importance to Medicare and how access to high-quality and bulk-billed health care changes outcomes for everyone.

In Labor's first term of government, we delivered more doctors, more bulk-billing and cheaper medicines, and we opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. This was just the start of generational investment in and improvements to our health system, and we're going further. On this side of the chamber, we stand for more bulk-billing, more doctors and more urgent care clinics. The Prime Minister has told Australians that this is Labor's year of delivery, and we aren't wasting any time. The Albanese Labor government is making the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation. We're investing $8½ billion to deliver more bulk-billed GP visits each year, hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors. This means Australian families will save hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses. For the first time, our government is expanding bulk-billing incentives to all Australians, and we will create an additional new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient, meaning that nine out of 10 GP visits will be fully bulk-billed by 2030. Labor's record investment restores every dollar that the Australian Medical Association says was cut from Medicare through the Liberals' funding freeze.

I do know how important it is to see a GP regularly. It helps to catch issues early, before they worsen and before they lead to more intensive and more costly care. I've been really lucky to have had the care from the amazing doctors at the Glebe Hill Family Practice and Nurture on Hobart's Eastern Shore. To Dr Tim Jones and Dr Boris Tan: hi, I can't thank you and your amazing staff enough for your support and care over the years.

Our policy lifts up our entire nation and ensures that no-one is held back or left behind. We need more doctors. That's why we're investing $662 million in a workforce package that will expand the largest GP training program in Australia's history. By 2028, we will fund 2,000 new trainees every year. This complements the massive increase in overseas educated doctors joining the Australian health system, with an extra 17,000 registering in the last two years—more than at any time in the past decade. More GPs mean more Australians can get the care that they need closer to home. It means shorter wait times, better continuity of care and stronger support for families, especially in rural and regional communities like Tassie. That's why growing our GP workforce isn't just a health investment; it's a commitment to a healthier and fairer Australia.

We initially promised 50 Medicare urgent care clinics at the 2022 election. As I said before, we delivered 87. We're building on the historic investment in Medicare to expand the availability of free Medicare urgent care clinics in all states and territories. This means that four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic. In Tasmania, we currently have five urgent care clinics: two in Hobart CBD, one in Bridgewater, one Launceston and another in Devonport. During the 2025 federal election campaign, the Albanese government promised another three for Tassie: one in Burnie, one in Sorell and one in Kingston. This will have a real impact on Tasmanians.

Nationally, more than 1½ million patients have walked through the door of a Medicare urgent care clinic and received the free urgent care they needed instead of waiting hours in a busy hospital emergency department. In Devonport, we have an urgent care clinic close to my electorate office. The community have embraced it with open arms. I drove past this clinic the other day. People were there, and they were lined up for over an hour before the clinic even opened, just wanting to see a doctor for free. People are even travelling from the neighbouring city of Burnie to be able to access the Medicare urgent care clinic. I know the community on the north-west coast are looking forward to the next clinic opening up in Burnie. Our Medicare urgent care clinics have filled the gap in our health system, and now patients all around the country, including parents and young children, don't have to spend hours in the hospital emergency department.

I have seen firsthand the benefits of urgent care clinics. On an amazing sunny Hobart afternoon, my partner and I decided to go for a bike ride along the beautiful Howrah Beach waterfront. Unfortunately, during this bike ride my partner fell off his bike. As the day progressed, it was clear that something wasn't right and that he needed to see a doctor. Without the Medicare urgent care clinic, we would have needed to go to the Royal Hobart Hospital. When we arrived at the Bathurst Street urgent care clinic, my partner was able to see a nurse and then a doctor, have the appropriate X-ray scans, get into a sling and get a script for pain meds. No credit card was needed, just our Medicare card.

It's not just Medicare that we are improving; we are making medicines even cheaper. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is the envy of the world. Having already slashed the cost of medicines with the largest cut to the cost of medicine in the history of the PBS in 2023, we are now going even further. The government will make cheaper medicines even cheaper, with scripts to cost Australians no more than $25 under the PBS. This is more than a 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of medicines, which will save Australians over $200 million each year. It's another key cost-of-living measure delivered by the Albanese government which will also put downward pressure on inflation. Australians have saved more than a billion dollars on the cost of their scripts thanks to the commitment to make medicines cheaper.

Our government is taking strong action to protect health of our young people. One of the pressing issues we face today is the rise in vaping among children and teenagers, and I'm sure senators are as concerned as I am. That's why we've introduced world-leading reforms to tackle vaping head on. These reforms are making a difference. According to the latest figures from the Cancer Council's Generation Vape study, the number of young people aged 14 to 17 who vape is now in decline. This is a clear sign that our policies are working and that we are moving in the right direction. But our commitments don't stop there. We are cracking down on the black market in tobacco. The illegal trade not only undermines public health but fuels criminal activity. To combat this, we are investing over $350 million to support law enforcement agencies, and these funds are helping them to take the fight directly to the criminals who profit from illegal tobacco. The Albanese Labor government is leading the charge in protecting young Australians from the dangers of vaping and illegal tobacco. Through groundbreaking reforms and substantial investments in law enforcement, we are seeing real progress. Together we are building a healthier, safer future for the next generation.

We are also delivering a major boost to our public health system with an additional $1.8 billion for public hospitals and health services next year. This one-year agreement is more than just a funding announcement; it's a commitment to ensuring Australians have access to better funded, more responsive public hospitals. It's a step forward in our long-term vision for health system reform. Let's not forget, it's a stark contribution to the previous Liberal government, which cut $50 billion from public hospitals. We're not just reversing those cuts; we're building something better.

And we're not stopping there. The Albanese government is working closely with states and territories to deliver a new five-year funding agreement that ensures our public hospitals are sustainable and ready to meet the needs of every Australian. The Albanese government is making Medicare even stronger. We are helping with cost-of-living pressures and ensuring that every Australian gets the best health care that they absolutely deserve. I know Tasmanians are behind this. I support the bill and I encourage senators to do the same.

I rise today to speak about the health crisis this country continues to impose on First Peoples of this country. The so-called gap in health, in housing, in justice, grows with every preventable death, every child removed, every prison sentence, every community left without basic health care or housing. They call it a gap. We call it what it is: a system of racial segregation. Our people are being killed through the destruction of country and culture, systemic neglect, targeted state violence, racist institutions and mass incarceration at the highest rates in the world, not by accident but by a system designed to assimilate or exterminate us. This is racial segregation, it is apartheid, and it is a slow and sophisticated genocide.

Health care in prisons isn't just a service or a hospital or a policy area; it is a human right that continues to be selectively denied to our people. People who should have been cared for by family in safe, secure housing or in a doctor's waiting room or in a hospital are sent to prison. There they often die alone in prison cells, without proper medical care, and too often their deaths are labelled 'from natural causes'. Let me be very clear: there is nothing natural about dying in a prison cell from a treatable illness. There is nothing natural about a child taking their own life while on remand. There is nothing natural about shackling a woman while she's giving birth or shackling a palliative-care patient. This is outrageous. There is nothing normal or natural about losing your hearing from an untreated infection or having your fingers amputated because your pain is not taken seriously until it's too late. These are real stories, real people. There is nothing natural about a man hitting his head against a wall to try and get relief from excruciating dental pain caused by an infected tooth left untreated for weeks. These are not natural injuries or deaths; this is systemic neglect at the hands of a state, including police officers and prison guards, who do not see our people as worthy of being looked after.

Those of us who have been around long enough have heard, time and time again, stories and reports about racism that festers in every police department and in every prison. Health care in this country is not equal. It is not safe. If you're black, disabled, criminalised or all of the above, you're far more likely to be denied the care you need to survive. This is how racism harms and kills. The brutal reality is that this country continues to deny incarcerated people their right to health care. As First Peoples, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet, which means we are the ones dying from this neglect, abuse and torture, all of which are very well documented. Behind closed doors, where international observers are denied entry, adults and children are being physically and sexually abused by the state. They are being shackled and spit-hooded. They are denied food and water, as punishment, and monitored on screens 24/7, with the lights on. If someone says they are depressed, the response of the prison is solitary confinement—for their so-called safety, in cells that still have hanging points.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody included a number of recommendations on health care. One of these recommendations was to remove all hanging points from prisons. This was 30 years ago, and it still hasn't been acted on. The Guardian Australia recently revealed at least 57 people died by suicide, using known hanging points, over the past two decades, despite numerous warnings from coroners over that time. What message does that send to families? What message does that send to young people who are in the crisis? When someone in custody reaches out for help, they should not be punished for it and they should not be placed in solitary confinement. They should be met with care, support and connection. Instead, we are seeing suicide risk treated as a threat, and that only makes things worse.

We've had report after report from coroners, ombudsmen and royal commissions all saying the same thing: the prison system is not safe for people in custody, racism is rife, proper health care is extremely rare, mental health support is inadequate, chronic illnesses go untreated and deteriorate, medication is delayed or denied and antipsychotic medications are used as silent handcuffs to sedate and placate people, contributing to a number of side effects and chronic diseases. And people are dying as a result. Our community controlled organisations are doing their best to reach people inside, but they are underfunded, overstretched and forced to operate in hostile environments that continue to criminalise and punish our people for being unwell. Ministers and governments are quick to promote our services to cover up their failures and to showcase them as evidence of progress while routinely making community controlled organisations work harder.

The government has acknowledged some of these failures, in the National review of First Nations healthcare in prisons. That review was a long time coming. It made one thing very clear: the system needs to be transformed. The review calls for a range of measures, but we have not seen any action on this yet. I commend Minister Butler for showing more interest in this area than other previous health ministers did, but the truth is that we have not seen any change. It's all talk, no action. And we can't afford to wait any longer, because people are literally dying—children are dying.

I want to talk about medication in prisons. People in prison are still being excluded from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, and that means they don't have access to the medicine they need, including basic things like insulin for diabetics. We know blackfellas, in particular, have high rates of diabetes—they can't access insulin in the prison system. It's like you just want us to die. There's no access to antipsychotic medications and there's no access to HIV treatment. People inside should have access to the same standard of health care as people on the outside, but we are failing to meet that standard in this country.

We've seen reports of prisons substituting medications with cheaper, less-effective options. We've seen delays that have caused seizures, infections and permanent disabilities. We've seen people denied treatment because it's too expensive or not available on site, and the vast majority of these people are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is not only dangerous; it's a violation of people's rights. It is one of the strongest and most effective levers the federal health minister has at his disposal. I've spoken to the health minister about fixing this a number of times. There is a range of solutions available, and I've provided those as well. One of my amendments to this bill also provides solutions. But people are still waiting. While we wait, people are dying.

It is time for the government, if they are genuine, to get on with it. Pull the states and territories into line. Use the Medicare scheme to implement the recommendations of last year's view that you paid for; establish nationally consistent standards; improve access to essential medicines, disability supports, drug and alcohol support, sexual and reproductive health care and post-relief care; remove all hanging points in custodial settings as a matter of urgency; address the widespread neglect of mental health and disability in youth and adult prison populations; and ensure First Peoples have access to community controlled, culturally safe models of care before, during and after incarceration. I foreshadow moving the second reading amendment as circulated, which outlines some of these priorities.

This is just the start. I also want to touch on health care for our elders, the ones who carry our stories, our lore and our culture. For our elders in custody—yep, they're there too—the situation is terrible. Prisons are not equipped to care for ageing people, to support complex needs, to treat cancers or for dying with dignity. There must be full and independent oversight and accountability for healthcare services in prisons. This is something that requires national coordination and leadership. Crucially, any work to transform custodial health systems should be designed, led and governed by First Peoples, including through adequate resourcing of Aboriginal community controlled health organisations. Health care is also where some of our strongest resistance has come from and where the community controlled movements come from—from our old people who fought against the system that saw them as less than human and who established our own services on our own terms.

To the families that reach out on a daily basis: I hear you, I see you and I stand with you. To our young people: your lives do matter, your future does matter and your health does matter. To our elders: thank you for your strength, your knowledge and your endurance. Let us honour them not just with words but with justice because until our people are safe in hospitals, in homes and in prisons none of us should be comfortable with the status quo.

I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I note that this is not my first speech. This bill, whilst primarily technical in nature, is part of this government's pivotal agenda to strengthen Medicare. Almost all Australians have come to see Medicare as very precious. We know how precious they see it by how they react whenever it is threatened by conservative governments, and also by how overwhelmingly they voted in an Albanese Labor government, with strengthening Medicare as one of our central promises.

Labor cares about Medicare and making it work better for all Australians. That little green card we have in our pockets or on our phones is one of the most powerful symbols of how Australians provide for each other in a fair society. Our government is making the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation 40 years ago, with $8.5 billion to deliver more bulk-billed GP visits each year, hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors. Australian patients and families will save hundreds of dollars a year in out-of-pocket costs because we will expand bulk-billing incentives and create a new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient. There is little doubt that the undermining of bulk-billing and Medicare was an agenda of the former conservative governments. So, when Labor came to government in 2022, bulk-billing was bordering on being obliterated. We want nine out of 10 visits to GPs to be bulk-billed by 2030, and we are investing to make that a reality.

We have delivered 87 urgent care clinics around Australia. Already, over 1.5 million patients have gone to these clinics for free urgent care that they need. They have got access to free care seven days a week, using that little green card. Labor has also delivered the two largest increases to the Medicare rebate in 30 years. This has made a real difference, with bulk-billing rising across the country.

I come from a single-parent family. Medicare is essential to us, to our friends and to our extended family. It underpins the health of our country. So Labor is investing in the workforce, to expand access to GPs so that we can continue to expand access to health care. By 2028, we will fund 2,000 new GP trainees each year. This expansion of our medical workforce at the community level will make it easier to see a doctor whenever you need. We are also, of course, making medicines cheaper. Labor has already slashed the cost of medicines under the PBS and made over 300 medicines available on 60-day prescriptions. And there is more to come. We will now make medicines even cheaper, with a script to cost Australians no more than $25 under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The health legislation amendment bill that I'm speaking on today is part of that large suite of reforms we are making to Medicare. This bill will work to protect Medicare by implementing some important fraud prevention measures and enhancing investigation and administrative seizure powers. It will also streamline the pharmacy approval process so that communities will be able to get quicker access to pharmaceuticals in certain circumstances.

To reduce fraud and incorrect claims, this legislation will shorten the timeframes for making bulk billing claims. By reducing the timeframe to submit bulk-billing claims, to one year rather than two years, we will reduce the number of incorrect and fraudulent claims. Maintaining the integrity of Medicare is critical to protecting it into the future, so it is important to crack down on potential fraud, and this reduction in timeframes is an administrative pathway to doing this. Importantly, to make sure patients aren't disadvantaged, there will remain a discretion to extend the timeframe to pay bulk-billing claims.

This bill will also improve investigative powers across Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The bill will improve investigative powers and allow them to be used consistently and effectively across Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to deal with potential misuse and fraud. It will also allow investigation of Criminal Code offences so that the department will not need to involve the AFP to execute warrants for suspected offences. This will strengthen our responses to anyone trying to rip off the system so that we can be assured that every dollar is going where it should be—to supporting Australia's health.

This bill also amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to improve the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing's ability to manage and alleviate therapeutic goods shortages. Currently, the department has to wait until critical therapeutic goods are not available before the secretary can approve the importation of substitutes. This change will allow the secretary to exercise this power in anticipation of such shortages.

I'm very pleased to say that this bill will also support the government's important, world leading vaping reforms. Vaping has replaced smoking as a real and present danger to young Australians. Australians of all ages vape, and this is not good for the health of our nation. Contrary to the misinformation that has circulated for so long, vaping isn't a harmless replacement for smoking. Vaping causes real harm to the lungs. Tiny particles are inhaled deep you’re your lungs when you vape, and these particles spread through your airways. These chemicals can cause inflammation, cell death, scarring and DNA damage. Due to the reforms led by the Albanese government, non-pharmacy retailers such as tobacconists, vape shops and convenience stores have not been allowed to sell any types of vapes for one year now. Vapes can only now be imported, manufactured, possessed or supplied in Australia if they are for the genuine purpose of helping people give up smoking. The bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to improve the investigations and enforcement action that can be taken by state governments after states adopted our important vaping reforms. It also clarifies the legal authority for the secretary of the department to make orders to cease the supply of vaping goods and make directions to stop misleading information about vaping being advertised. Vaping is an insidious threat to the health of young Australians, and I am pleased this bill will help strengthen the powers to help stop this threat. I strongly commend this bill to you as part of the package to deliver what Australians demand: a strong, universal and mighty Medicare.

():  Australia has a world-class health system, and that is largely thanks to the various health benefits schemes such as Medicare which help Australians pay for the health care they need. In 2023-24 payments for health benefits including medical services, pharmaceutical services and private health rebates totalled at least $65.1 billion. The government is committed to protecting this investment and strengthening Medicare by improving the compliance framework that ensures its integrity. As other speakers have observed, the government commissioned the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance, known as the Philip review, in November 2022 to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system. The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Act 2023 and the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Act 2023 made amendments in response to the recommendations of the Philip review.

This bill too will support the integrity and sustainability of Medicare by addressing a range of issues to enable the department to conduct more efficient, timely and effective compliance activities. The government is committed to tackling issues of fraud, integrity and noncompliance wherever we see them. That includes Medicare but also has implications for me in my role as Minister for the NDIS. When we see issues of this kind we know we also see poorer outcomes for Australians who rely on our systems of social support. The bill will improve payment integrity by reducing the timeframe for making bulk-billed claims, allow investigative powers to be used consistently and effectively across health schemes including Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and improve the processes associated with pharmacy approvals. The bill also makes several sensible amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to enhance the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing's capacity to manage and alleviate the consequences of therapeutic goods shortages and to support compliance enforcement activities undertaken in relation to unlawful therapeutic goods and unlawful vaping goods. These amendments are consistent with this government's unwavering commitment to public health and mitigate the public health risks associated with therapeutic goods and vaping goods by supporting strong, effective regulation under the act.

The bill also amends the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023. These amendments are largely clarifying in nature and have been identified as necessary during implementation to ensure the smooth and consistent operation of the act. I know that a number of senators have either flagged or moved second-reading amendments, and I may give an indication about the government's position in relation to each of those. Senator Steele-John has moved an amendment on sheet 3360, and the government won't be supporting this amendment. The amendment is unrelated to the purpose of the bill. The bill, as I have just set out, seeks to improve the enforcement of Medicare integrity measures and support the implementation of world-leading vaping and tobacco reforms. Senator Steele-John's amendment relates to dental services.

I'll make the following general remarks in relation to the issues that you raise in that amendment, Senator Steele-John. Our government has provided $107.8 million in the 2025-26 budget to state and territory governments to support public dental services for adults. We are also working in partnership with states and territories to develop a new National Oral Health Plan for the next 10 years. We recognise, of course—and Minister Butler has said this also—that in the longer term there is a lot of ambition for dental to be covered by Medicare, but our focus right now is on strengthening Medicare and rebuilding general practice after decades of cuts and neglect from the Liberals.

I will speak briefly, too, about the government's approach to the second reading amendment to be moved by Senator Thorpe. I listened very carefully to her contribution when she was in the chamber earlier. I understand that Senator Thorpe has had a number of discussions with the Minister for Health and Ageing on this subject and that he has agreed to have regular discussions with her to work on this very important issue. The government supports in principle many elements that are set out in her amendment. We acknowledge, in particular, the disproportionate representation of First Nations people in corrective settings nationwide and the implications that that has for health outcomes. Our government has taken and is taking significant steps to address this issue. At the 6 December 2024 Health Ministers' Meeting, all health ministers endorsed the release of the report of the independent National Review of First Nations Health Care in Prisons. Health ministers also released a joint response to the review, and in this they thanked all of the stakeholders who contributed to the review's findings and they committed to ensuring health care is delivered in custodial settings by upholding the fundamental human rights of people in places of detention. Both the report and that statement are publicly available.

As an outcome of the review, all health ministers jointly wrote to ministers responsible for adult and youth justice regarding the review of health care in prisons, and they collaborate on this work, which is progressing. The Minister for Health and Ageing has also written to states and territories seeking advice on actions taken by them to remove hanging points in custodial facilities and has sought their support to further reduce preventable First Nations deaths in custody. The government will continue to progress these reforms through these channels with our state and territory counterparts, who do hold the primary responsibility for the justice system, and it would be premature to support this amendment while this work continues.

To conclude, Australians are, of course, rightly proud of the systems of social support that we've built, and we've built them in the Australian way over generations. The PBS and Medicare are so significant. They are a significant part of our national fabric, and I am proud to be part of a government that is strengthening these great Australian institutions. I thank senators very much for their contributions to the debate on this bill.

(Quorum formed)

The question is that Senator Steele-John's second reading amendment be agreed to.

I move the amendment on sheet 3375:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) people are continuing to die preventable deaths in custody due to incarcerated people being denied the right to proper healthcare,

(ii) entrenched and systemic racism throughout corrections and health systems in this country is the greatest barrier to equitable and culturally appropriate interventions and necessitates bold action to improve outcomes for First Peoples in custody,

(iii) the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (the 'Royal Commission') provided a range of recommendations for addressing systemic racism and improving health outcomes for First Peoples in custody, which remain yet to be implemented,

(iv) building on what families, coroners, Ombudsman reports, Commissioners and First Peoples advocates have called for, for decades, the National Review of First Nations Health Care in Prisons (the 'Review') identified urgent reforms needed to address substandard healthcare in prisons,

(v) recent investigations revealed that at least 57 people died by suicide using known hanging points over the past two decades, despite numerous warnings from coroners to remove these over that time, and

(vi) the Federal Government has obligations under international law, through the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the 'Nelson Mandela Rules'), to ensure people in custodial settings receive equitable healthcare; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) work with States and Territories to:

(A) implement the recommendations of the Review,

(B) establish nationally consistent standards for culturally appropriate, timely and equitable healthcare in custodial settings, in line with the Royal Commission's recommendations, the Review's findings and the Nelson Mandela Rules,

(C) improve access to essential medicines, disability supports, drug and alcohol support, sexual and reproductive healthcare and post-release care,

(D) remove all hanging points in custodial settings as a matter of urgency,

(E) address the widespread neglect of mental health and disability despite high rates of these in incarcerated people, and

(F) ensure First Peoples have access to community-controlled, culturally safe models of care before, during and after incarceration, including access to Medicare-equivalent services; and

(ii) ensure full and independent oversight and accountability for healthcare provision in prisons, including through data transparency, public reporting and enforceable quality standards, and

(iii) ensure that any work to transform custodial health systems is designed, led and governed by First Peoples, including through adequate resourcing of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations".

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Minister, the existing wording of section 19(1) already allows the TGA to approve the use of a drug that is not registered or approved in Australia, in the event of a shortage. That power has been used for 135 current approvals, and for 600 expired and lapsed approvals, for a total of 735 approvals of new drugs or versions of drugs in two years. Why do you need new powers when the existing wording is clearly no barrier to approval?

Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. The advice that I've been provided is that the amendment goes to the ability to be able to act in advance of a shortage arising—knowing that a shortage is coming towards us down the pipeline rather than being required to wait until the shortage actually arises. It will allow the government and the authorities to get ahead of shortages in relation to pharmaceuticals.

Thank you, Minister. Minister, can you provide an example of a situation where this new power would be needed because the old wording did not provide for that situation?

Senator Roberts, I think I've explained the principle, which is that from time to time we know that shortages of pharmaceuticals do arise. They arise because of interruptions to global supply chains or, sometimes, an interruption in a particular facility's manufacturing capability. That disruption doesn't immediately translate into a shortage, but we know, logically, that it will at some moment. These provisions allow us to get ahead of that situation.

My previous question was theoretical, to understand the process that informed the legislation. This question, Minister, is not theoretical: in what situation has the existing wording of section 19(1) failed to provide a good outcome for everyday Australians? Could you give me a real example, please?

There are multiple shortages that are managed by the TGA, and we want to be in the best possible position in the future to be able to manage them as they arise.

Just one example, please, Minister—not a theoretical one, not a hypothetical; just one concrete example of where this has been needed in the past and was not available.

Senator, it's not my intention to trawl over previous decisions and circumstances, but it is the case that, from time to time, we can see in advance the potential for a shortfall, and we want to give the TGA the best possible opportunity to be able to intervene and make sure that the medicines that Australians need are available.

That seems to be confirmation, Minister, that it has not happened in the past. There's no need for it.

That doesn't follow from the advice I've provided to you, Senator Roberts. There are shortfalls from time to time in medications that are important for Australians. The TGA presently acts to manage those and works very actively. We want to make sure that, in future, they have all of the tools available to them to be able to do that, and we consider this to be an important amendment that will assist the TGA in that task.

Minister, thank you. You say that there are examples, but you won't give me any, so let's move on. Under this new low bar for approval, a pharmaceutical company would be tempted to avoid applying for a regular approval, which is expensive and time consuming, when they could just have their drug waved through under a spurious scarcity rumour—not fact but pending scarcity. Minister, what safeguards are in this legislation to ensure that big pharma does not create a false scarcity story to avoid making a normal authorisation application?

The TGA relies on intelligence; the TGA does not rely on rumours. The premise of your question is incorrect. It remains my position, as I've explained a number of times now, that it's really important that we are able to act when we are aware of a forthcoming shortage or the possibility of a shortage of critical medicines. Australians rely on the availability of these, and it's an important function that the TGA serves in protecting the supply chain.

Minister, this is getting to be disappointing. You keep telling me there are many examples and it's concrete, but I don't get anything. Let's move on. Minister, under this bill, is there a time limit for the approval, and, if so, can the approval be renewed at the end of that period, creating what is, in effect, a permanent approval where they just keep extending it?

Senator Roberts, when you're speaking about an approval, which particular approval are you referring to? Obviously, the legislation canvasses quite a range of different approvals.

Any temporary approval.

The advice I am provided is that the approval, by its nature, is temporary and expires as the shortage is resolved.

So, if the shortage is not resolved, is there a time limit for that approval to be enforced? If there is, can it automatically be renewed—in other words, granting a bypassing of the normal full regulatory approval process?

I appreciate the senator waiting while I obtain advice. I want to give accurate information to the Senate. The advice I've been provided is that these are statutory criteria that need to be met for any approval, and the TGA would need to be satisfied that those statutory conditions were met. However, it is the case that, ordinarily, these circumstances resolve themselves, so we do see shortfalls from time to time, and they are generally resolved over time. Our interest is making sure that any short-term shortages or impacts on Australians can be managed and that the TGA has the tools to do so.

So, Minister, is there a time limit and is it automatically renewed if the shortage continues beyond that time limit?

The advice that I have is that the approval would be provided with a time limit. That doesn't prevent a reconsideration of the same questions, but it would be against the same criteria that I referred to in my earlier answer to your question.

So it's highly likely we would just continue. The TGA has already approved certain drugs, including the product Pfizer sells as a COVID vaccine—their word. It's already been approved for full TGA approval based, according to the TGA, on the safety profile data experienced during emergency use authorisation. Minister, will this legislation provide yet another way big pharma can make an end run around Australia's longstanding authorisation process?

No. That's a very leading question. The purpose of the legislation is set out in the explanatory memorandum and in other documentation around the bill, and there has been a Senate inquiry into the bill. Our objective is to make sure that Australians have the medicine that they need, even when shortfalls arise globally, and that we are in the best position to manage any consequences when we do see interruptions to global supply chains.

Of the 735 drugs granted authorisation under the existing legislation, how many are now subject to an application for full approval or have been approved based, according to the TGA, on the adverse events profile of the drug during approval under section 19(1) in the same way Pfizer's Comirnaty was?

I am not in a position to confirm the numbers that you've cited in your question, nor do I have information about the numbers of applications on foot in various processes administered by the TGA. Perhaps you might like to think about another way of getting to the information that you're interested in.

I will ask again and will try and break up the question: of the 735 drugs granted authorisation under the existing legislation, how many are now subject to an application for full approval?

As I indicated to you, Senator, I don't have that information with me, nor would you expect me to. It's a very detailed question.

Okay, I won't continue with the other breakdowns of the question. Let's move on to the next question. Does a drug approved under section 19(1) also go on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and, if so, does the normal negotiation on price still occur, or do we just pay whatever the drug company wants us to pay?

Thank you for waiting, Senator Roberts. I was seeking advice, again so that I can provide you with accurate information. The advice I have is that the standard process is for a medicine or product to be listed with the ARTG first before being considered by the PBS.

Thank you, Minister. The TGA have been enjoying unrivalled, unquestioned and unaccountable power since the start of COVID. Minister, why is the government extending the powers of the TGA again, with a bill that provides zero parliamentary oversight of the new powers?

I don't agree with many of the propositions that are embedded in your question, Senator Roberts. I think I've been really clear about the purpose of the bill, or at least the elements which you're asking me about now. Your very first question was: why do we need these additional provisions and abilities for the TGA? The answer is: from time to time we see shortages arise, where interventions are required to protect the interests, particularly the health interests, of Australian consumers. We want to make sure that the TGA has the capacity to manage these kinds of shortfalls.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate what you just said; I don't agree with it at all, because the TGA has run roughshod over the people of Australia when it comes to health. They are not held accountable. We need to return, in my opinion, to the days when the department of health approved or did not approve a drug and then the department could be held accountable to the parliament. That's not the case for the TGA. It completely bypasses the parliament. So I foreshadow my amendment to introduce a provision to the existing legislation that any approval issued under this legislation must be by way of legislative instrument to allow parliamentary scrutiny. We, not the TGA, represent the people. The TGA has so many close contacts and close conflicts of interest with big pharma. It gets 96 per cent of its revenue from big pharma. Minister, why is there so little parliamentary oversight of our health bureaucracy?

Senator Roberts, I think you and I have different views about the level of oversight. The TGA is part of the department of health. The department of health appears regularly at Senate estimates. There are also a range of forums in which the parliament may ask questions about these issues, including, of course, in this place, in our own question time. Our government is committed to scrutiny, and I simply disagree with the proposition that you have made in your question just now.

You're welcome to disagree, Minister. I'm sure that you welcome my disagreement. We saw the previous head of the TGA, Professor John Skerritt, retire from the TGA and, eight months later, get a job on the board of Medicines Australia, the big pharma medical lobby in this country. We also see that the TGA gets 96 per cent of its revenue from big pharma. That is a reason why we need to take the approval of drugs away from the TGA. Big pharma is not trusted, and, by association and due to their COVID mismanagement, we don't trust the TGA anymore. I move One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3379 as circulated:

(1) Schedule 2, Part 6, page 22 (line 1) to page 23 (line 22), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 6 — Therapeutic goods approvals

Therapeutic Goods Act 1989

52 Subsection 19(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, grant an approval to a person for the importation into, or the exportation from, Australia or the supply in Australia of specified therapeutic goods that are not registered goods or listed goods:

(a) for use in the treatment of another person; or

(b) for use solely for experimental purposes in humans;

and such an approval may be given subject to such conditions as are specified in the instrument.

Note: For variation of an approval for use of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(b), see subsection (4B).

(1AAA) A legislative instrument made under subsection (1) must set out the reasons for the approval.

53 Subsection 19(4B)

Omit "by notice in writing", substitute "by legislative instrument".

I would like to make a couple of comments on the contribution that Senator Roberts has just made in relation to his amendment to this particular bill. I probably would have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Roberts's position, particularly after the comment made by the government that they're committed to scrutiny. I don't think anything could be further from the truth, when we've seen the amount of times that transparency has been denied in this place. In fact, this morning we had a half-hour contribution about the refusal of this government to be transparent when it comes to the NDIS. So I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Roberts in relation to the lack of scrutiny of their actions that the government are largely prepared to allow this parliament and the Australian public over their time in government.

But, in saying that, I understand that one of the most critical issues facing Australia in recent times has been drug shortages, for a number of reasons, of medicines and treatments coming into Australia. As a legislature, whilst safety and efficacy are at the forefront of every decision we make in relation to providing treatments and access to treatments for Australians through the necessary processes that exist within the department of health—and that includes through the TGA—one of the things we must always do is make sure that there is quick access because we know that so many Australians rely on treatments.

When there are shortages, the government must be able to act with some haste to put supplementary or substitute treatments and medications in place to ensure that Australians are not denied the life-saving and life-changing treatments they often rely on. At no time should safety ever be compromised for Australians, but we do understand that many Australians rely on the agility of our health department and its agencies to do that. But we acknowledge the lack of scrutiny and the lack of transparency that have become a hallmark of this government.

I'd like to indicate the government's voting position. As I understand it, Senator Roberts's amendment seeks to essentially require certain decisions to be made by way of a legislative instrument rather than by notice of writing. The government consider that this would be unnecessarily burdensome and would deprive the TGA of the flexibility that is necessary to manage the health interests of Australians, and we won't be voting in favour of Senator Roberts's amendment.

Senator Steele-John, were you seeking the call?

I may have a couple of questions, but not in relation to the One Nation amendment. I'm happy for that to be transacted and to then go back to questions on the bill.

The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 3379, moved by Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

I move the request for amendment (1) on sheet 3372.

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your contribution in the second reading debate and, as I indicated in my response, your engagement with Minister Butler about this set of questions. As I said, as with the second reading amendment, the government doesn't support this request for amendment. We are working with counterparts in state and territory jurisdictions on our response to the independent National Review of First Nations Health Care in Prisons and we consider that those matters are best dealt with in that way. But we thank you for your constructive engagement on these questions.

The question is that the request for amendment (1) on sheet 3372, as moved by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

I wish to foreshadow my amendment on sheet 3372. Before that, I wish to speak to my amendment and what it means. It's basically asking for photo ID to be shown when you go to the doctor. Medicare, at the moment, is facing about $3 billion of debt a year through rorts that are happening. I have advocated before to get photo ID on the Medicare card. My amendment is basically to require people to show identification—your driver's licence, passport or other identification—that will prove that it's actually you attending the doctor's appointment. Why I say this is because in my first time in parliament, from 1996 to1998, I was advised, by the Federal Police, about the rorting that was going on in our Medicare system. People were coming across from overseas, using our Medicare system, and getting prescriptions, and then taking them back to their country and selling them on the black market. That was known to the Federal Police. They informed me about it. Nothing has been done about it.

There was another case where a gentleman had a friend visit from Macedonia. He took his friend's card. He got sick, and he ended up in hospital. He died in hospital. They believed this other fellow, who was an Australian, had died, but he came forward to say 'no', that he had loaned his card to his friend. There were no charges laid. We now have 100,000-plus people who are illegally in Australia, overstaying their visas. We have a number of foreign students in Australia, which has expanded out to 750,000. These foreign students have friends and family also, so they can take their family or friend's Medicare card and abuse our system. There are also doctors that are prescribing medication to these people—it shouldn't be. That's an added cost to our PBS that we, the taxpayers, are funding. We shouldn't be funding this at all.

Even doctors are falsely claiming funding for appointments they did not have. This is an ongoing problem that we have in Australia. Also, these people are not paying the right price to go and see it—they would go to bulk-billing. Of course, the government tell us they are going to raise the bulk-billing rates to 90 per cent in just a few years. Well, I'll believe that when I see it, because I don't believe it's going to happen.

Also, with the rising costs for the doctors in rent and other things that are happening, they can't afford to give bulk-billing. They're not meeting their costs or overheads of staffing, rates and electricity that are needed to run their practices.

With Medicare as well, the figures show that we're going to be 10,000 doctors short within the next five to six years. How can we keep giving decent health care to Australians? I know that a lot of people are saying it takes them two-plus weeks to get in to see a doctor—at least. Some are taking even longer than that. Doctors have closed their books; they're not seeing new people. Our hospital system is being overrun with people going to the emergency section because they can't see a doctor.

What is happening here is an absolute disgrace. All I heard from the Labor Party during their campaign was about this Medicare scare. That's all you've put out there. You said you were going to open up 24/7 bulk-billing. It never happens. You only had a couple that opened 24/7, because you can't get the doctors. What you're also doing is taking doctors from general practices to put them in the bulk-billing Medicare centres—you say you're looking after the public—but all they are is first responders. A patient sees that doctor once, but they don't go back to them. They have to go back to their GP.

What's happening then? All these doctors are leaving GP practice because they're getting paid better in the bulk-billing practices that Labor are setting up, and there are no doctors to go back to in these communities because they've left. You're causing more of the problem that you're supposed to be sorting out with Medicare, which is rising in cost. I just don't see. You haven't got the answers for it. The hospitals are overrun. You haven't got beds that are provided for the public at all.

My proposal here is for people to be required to show identification; there's nothing wrong with that. Show the public that you are fair dinkum about saving the taxpayers' dollars here and not allowing people to rip off the system. The least the public could expect from the government is that you will not provide services to people who are ripping off the system. If people want to go and see a doctor, fair enough. If they are not an Australian that's entitled to this service, then they should pay the price for it. These people are supposed to come here. They've got their insurance. They should be able to pay for medical care, but they expect the taxpayer to pay for it.

This is something that I've raised for years, time and time again, yet you do nothing about it. You think it's an endless pot of gold out there for the public to pay for. It's the same with the NDIS and Aboriginal industry. I could keep going on and on about the waste of money that we have out there. You are not reining in the cost to the Australian taxpayer. I am calling for support for this amendment. I invite the government to prove to the Australian taxpayers that you are fair dinkum about reining in the rorting that is going on. It needs to be stopped. I move my amendment on sheet 3373:

(1) Page 40 (after line 4), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A — Medicare benefit not payable unless government photographic identity document provided

Health Insurance Act 1973

1 After section 19C

Insert:

19CAA Medicare benefit not payable unless government photographic identity document provided

(1) A medicare benefit is not payable in respect of a professional service rendered to a person, unless the person provided a government photographic identity document at the time, or as soon as practicable after, the service was rendered.

(2) In this section:

government photographic identity document means an identity document providing photographic identification of a person that is issued by the government of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory.

I'll quickly indicate that the government does not support the amendment. In 1984, we introduced Medicare. You're right, Senator Hanson, we will continue to defend Medicare and to protect it, because it's based on a simple promise, which is that, if something goes wrong—if you get hurt, if you get sick or if you need help—you won't be on your own; Medicare will be there for you. Our view is that we will get on with the job of strengthening Medicare. You really should only need your Medicare card if you need to see a doctor—not your drivers licence or your credit card but your Medicare card. It is on that basis that we oppose the amendment.

Whilst we won't be supporting Senator Hanson's amendment, because we would have liked the opportunity to have had more time, we do understand the intent she is trying to achieve here. That is making sure that we minimise the amount of fraudulent activity that occurs in Medicare. That is absolutely to be commended.

But Senator Hanson also makes some very good points about the fact that, under this current government, Australians are being incredibly misled about Medicare. Nothing could be more egregious than the Prime Minister waving around his Medicare card during the election campaign, trying to con Australians into believing that that was the only card that they needed when they went to the doctor.

Australians know a very different story. They know when they go to the doctor, because it hits them in the hip pocket. They don't just need their Medicare card. Under this government, the amount that they are paying on their credit card for out-of-pocket expenses has never been higher. It is the highest amount that has ever been paid by Australians to visit their doctor under Medicare. I think it is incredibly disingenuous for the Labor Party to come in here and pretend that Australians don't need anything but their Medicare card, when they know that the truth is it has never been more expensive.

It being 1.30, the Senate must move on. As at 1.30 pm, the committee reports progress to the Senate. We now move to two-minute statements.

I was shocked to read on the weekend that the CFMEU's new New South Wales boss, Mr Michael Crosby, was saying that they were 'looking at large, multiple complex residential construction sites' and 'it may push up costs when we appear on site'. This is the same CFMEU that was supposed to have been put into administration by this parliament. It is now rearing its ugly, corrupt, mafia-like head in New South Wales. Just as Victoria is effectively a failed state and Queensland has had the CFMEU disease, now New South Wales will be subjected to that.

The worst part about this is that younger Australians will pay the price for this union's cartel- and mafia-like behaviour. In the main, younger Australians will not be able to buy a standalone brick or weatherboard house. For most young people, their first house will be a small apartment, in a highly urbanised population like Australia. Young people have to pay this 30 per cent criminal tax thanks to the CFMEU and brought to you by this Labor Party.

The other thing that occurred to me is that maybe this is all part of the grand plan—more evidence that Labor is pursuing a corporate and institutional housing agenda, in place of individuals. The Australian people know that the great Australian dream is about people, not about institutions, but under Labor there is a cartel of Cbus, CFMEU and co. At the same time, we also see the government supporting foreign asset managers, like BlackRock; and foreign governments to purchase Australian housing stock. It really is a sick perversion of the Australian dream.

It's an honour to speak about the incredible work of EMILY's List Australia today, our country's only financial, political and personal support network for progressive Labor women in politics. I want to acknowledge the CEO, who is in the gallery today. Since its first candidates stood in 1997 to 1998, EMILY's List has supported over 600 progressive Labor women. More than 300 of them have gone on to be elected to state and federal parliaments. This is an extraordinary achievement.

At the heart of this work, though, is mentoring. Every EMILY's List endorsed candidate is matched with a mentor—a former MP, a unionist, a community based campaigner—someone who knows the road and walks beside them every step of the way. This kind of personal, practical and political support creates lifelong bonds between women leaders across generations and geographies. It has been a privilege to be a mentor myself. I want to acknowledge one of those mentors, Leonie Morgan, who is also in the gallery—a longtime friend of mine whose mentorship I have had the benefit of. Her guidance, experience and unwavering commitment have made a difference to countless campaigns and candidates.

Today we are seeing the results of decades of work by women just like Leonie, Pam and others. A record-breaking 49.1 per cent of our federal parliamentarians are women. Women now make up 56 per cent of the Labor Party room. For the first time in Australian history, there are more women than men in the federal cabinet—12 women and 11 men. Here in the Senate, 65 per cent of Labor senators are women. We know that diverse, equitable leadership doesn't just happen; it takes organising, mentoring and backing each other in. That is the mission of EMILY's List, and it is working.

I rise today to speak about the brutality and suffering that we are witnessing unfolding in Gaza right now. I, like many, many Australians and so many other people around the world, saw those images of starving children splashed across our newspapers and our television screens and in our social media feeds and felt the sickening feeling of seeing a child be just skin and bones—an innocent child.

Using starvation as a weapon of war is illegal, immoral and brutal. There is no justification for starving innocent children or for stopping innocent children and their families from receiving food, aid and clean water. The extremist position of the Netanyahu government that continues to use the innocence of these children as their weapon of war must be called out and must be confronted. There is just no justification for this. One in five children in Gaza are suffering severe malnutrition. Australia must join with countries around the world in not just condemning this but taking action against the brutal forces that are forcing these children to starve. (Time expired)

Technology is a beautiful thing, and I say that as someone that genuinely loves it. I'm usually the first in my family to pick up new apps, tools and trends. What excites me about technology is its potential to enhance human life and to make things better, smarter and more connected. That's the beauty of it. Its Greek root 'techne' means craft—something shaped with intention—but craft alone is not enough. It needs 'telos'—it needs purpose. Technology must be guided by a clear sense of why it exists and who it is meant to serve. Artificial intelligence is advancing at a rapid pace. What we once thought of as futuristic is now a daily part of life. Gen Z and Gen Alpha are not googling anymore; they are ChatGPTing. If you say you googled something, you've dubbed yourself as maybe a boomer. This shift isn't just cultural. It's generational, and it's accelerating faster than our ability to regulate it.

Other nations are acting. The European Union has passed the world's first comprehensive AI law. The United Kingdom has launched a national strategy to ensure AI development is safe, transparent and in the public interest. The United States Congress is also progressing bipartisan legislation. But Australia is behind. We risk becoming passive recipients, not just of foreign technology but of foreign values. AI experts predict that, with the rapid development of large language models, life as we know it has about 12 months left before it comprehensively changes. That might sound dramatic, but it's true. The opportunity is exciting, but the threat is equally as real. We need laws that ensure that AI serves the Australian people, upholding privacy, protecting the vulnerable and putting people before algorithms. The time to act is now.

This week, we on this side are delivering on the Anthony Albanese Labor government's key election commitment to protect penalty rates for around 2.6 million Australian award recipients who rely on those to make ends meet. The reform will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate to protect and ensure that penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be reduced or substituted by another term that would reduce an employee's take-home pay. It displays the priority that this government places on protecting and standing side by side with Australian workers. If only we could say that about those opposite!

We know that there are over 1.3 million retail workers across this country, and we know that they are on the front line. We know hospitality workers will be caught in this legislation as well. I want to talk about retail workers and how important it is that they have the strong advocacy of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, better known as the SDA, which has been at the forefront of ensuring that these rights are protected. I want to particularly acknowledge the secretary of the Tasmanian branch, Joel Tynan, for his commitment, along with all the other executives and the national secretary of the SDA, because this work is so important.

I can remember that during COVID everyone was singing the praises of those on the front line, which included retail workers. What we are now doing is delivering to make sure those workers get what they deserve—overtime and penalty rates. These are so important for these workers to be able to make their family's budget, to be able to afford to buy a home, to be able to afford their rent. I commend the union for their work and I condemn those opposite who are still opposed to this. Just like big business, they don't want to do the right thing by Australian workers. (Time expired)

Today Crikey has issued a statement about me. It's titled 'One Nation senator warned against giving CPR to dying Belfast man while serving in British Army'. This is taken from a diary that was published by one of my colleagues, and it does refer, in fact, to that very event. A house search was being conducted. An elderly man was very angry at the fact that we were searching his house, and he eventually had a heart attack. He was laid on the floor. His wife, who had been quite agitated during the search, refused to allow us to help him in any way.

I was reported—and this is correct; these are my words—as telling my colleague not to pump his chest as I'd been told that to do a good job on that you had to hear the ribs crack. I didn't think that would be a good look at any subsequent inquest. Needless to say, the media, the following day after the search, exaggerated it, of course, claiming that medical assistance was refused, the ambulance was delayed, the man was assaulted, his wife was assaulted and so on. Later, the Secretary of State for Defence, in parliament, in the House of Commons, said that the search was properly conducted as part of their security duties by the soldiers concerned.

The only point that I'll add from a personal point of view is that my reference to hearing ribs crack came from my own experience of performing CPR on my grandmother, who died in front of me from a heart attack when I was 20 years of age. I, in fact, heard her ribs crack, so I was very aware of the fact that that kind of damage could occur. I trust you'll appreciate that, under the circumstances, to have that kind of thing determined at an inquest would not have been a very positive outcome for me and for my fellow soldiers.

On the weekend I was able to travel back home and there, in Rockhampton, I went and inspected the $1 billion water pipeline that is being built from the Fitzroy River to Gladstone. This pipeline was to deliver 30,000 megalitres of freshwater from the Fitzroy Basin. We'd burn it, or Fortescue and others would burn it, turn it into hydrogen and export it to North Asia. I always thought it was a crazy idea to export freshwater from the world's driest continent. But, be that as it may, that's what the government pumped millions of dollars into. In the end, thankfully, that project is not going ahead.

But I went out there to have a look at how much has been wasted. It is wasted; it is a massive project. A few weeks ago I went and looked at the Gladstone end, which is its own story. At the Rockhampton end of this project there are massive sheds and a huge amount of equipment onsite costing, as I said, $1 billion. From the conversations I've had with people locally, they forgot to put a substation in. So they don't power the water pumps from the grid; they're using diesel pumps. This was notionally for a green hydrogen project, but they were using diesel pumps. Fortunately, that's not going ahead, but, unfortunately, 90 people lost their jobs in Gladstone because of the government's missteps here. On this, they made promises to us all that they would create these jobs.

They've done nothing but waste billions of dollars of government money, taxpayers' money, and they're set to do more. The government is still pushing ahead with more than $10 billion of hydrogen programs as we speak, even though all of this is not working. Even Annastacia Palaszczuk, the former Queensland government premier, said hydrogen is not ready. Isn't it about time we stop wasting money and focus on things that can actually create jobs in this country?

Western Australia is critical to the future of advanced manufacturing, clean energy and national economic security, and this Labor government is backing WA to lead that future. My state is home to the critical minerals and resources the world needs for the clean energy transition, and the Albanese Labor government is making sure we don't just dig them up and ship them out. We're building industries that can turn those resources into battery cells, solar panels, wind turbines and green metals, at home in WA.

The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is backing that shift. It's helping WA businesses to scale up in everything from processing critical minerals to—Senator Canavan will be pleased to hear—hydrogen and clean energy manufacturing. We're unlocking jobs right across our state, from the Pilbara to the South West, and helping local industries break into global supply chains.

And this is all part of something bigger. Last year, Labor's $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package marked the most significant investment in nation-building industry policy in a generation. It's what unions have long fought for and it's what workers in places like my state of Western Australia have long deserved. We've moved beyond the question of if we will make things here, and now it's about how we do it—how we do it with local workers, WA materials and WA skills. It's why this government is investing in $500 million in skills and training for priority industries like manufacturing, construction, and clean energy; expanding free TAFE and supporting apprentices.

Under this government, we're not exporting opportunity; we're creating it right here. This is what a future made in Australia looks like, and it's in WA.

Today is the day of action for greyhounds, organised by Animal Liberation. Right across the country, people who care about animals are speaking up for greyhounds. These dogs continue to be exploited, overbred, injured and killed by an industry that values gambling profits over the welfare of greyhounds. I've been campaigning with animal advocates and activists for years to shut down the greyhound racing industry because I know it is rotten to the core. It kills and maims dogs, fuels a worsening rehoming crisis and, shamefully, is still being propped up by public subsidies.

In New South Wales we are waiting for yet another government report, and we expect the same excuses and for them to name a few bad apples, offer one more chance and pour more public money into cruelty. The New South Wales Labor government is hooked on gambling donations from companies like TAB and Sportsbet, and it is turning a blind eye to the deaths of greyhounds on and off tracks.

The gambling and racing industries have a truly corrosive influence on our society and on our democracy. They prey on vulnerable people and are built on the cruelty and death of racing animals.

Meanwhile, New Zealand has shown real leadership by recommitting to a ban on greyhound racing. As our friends at the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds point out, 15 deaths were enough for their racing minister to recommit to the ban. In the same period, 119 greyhounds were killed on tracks in Australia. And here? Nothing.

Australia is one of the last countries on earth to still allow greyhound racing. It is time to end this cruelty once and for all and let these beautiful doggos run for fun, not their lives.

Everything the government touches turns to you-know-what, but not much suffers more than housing. We are in the middle of the worst housing crisis in our nation's history, and what does the government do? Both sides are guilty of this: more of the same failed interventions. They pump the market with first home buyer grants that just inflate prices. They guarantee high-risk loans using taxpayer funds. They roll out shared equity schemes, but nothing says 'freedom' like co-owning your house with the government—people who can barely balance a budget! They open the migration floodgates—record numbers of people have come here recently—and then they wonder why there's a shortage of homes. It's not complicated, guys and girls; it's basic economics—supply and demand.

We now have the most unaffordable housing on Earth, second only to Hong Kong. In 1990, homes cost about three times the average household income. Today, it's roughly 10. Young Australians are losing hope. Families are breaking under the weight of mortgages and rent. Parents are forced to outsource parenting to the state, trading family time for double shifts and longer hours just to keep a roof over their heads. And the government's answer is more government, more demand-side stimulus and a bigger bubble. Just stop meddling. Just get out of the way. Australia needs this: more land release, lower taxes, less migration, less red and green tape and far less taxpayer funded demand-side stimulus. In short—and this is the answer for almost everything in this place—less government, more freedom. That's it.

Let's just have a think about this: Do people deserve fair wages? Do they deserve fair conditions? Should the low-wage workforce in this country get a fair go? You'd think the answer to that would be yes for everyone, but, unfortunately, for the Liberals and Nationals it's always been a no. Just take a look at what's happening with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, or the SDA, and McDonald's in South Australia. Earlier this month, the Fair Work Commission ruled that 5,000 McDonald's employees in South Australia will now have the right to bargain together for better pay and conditions. These are young, casual, low-paid workers, some in their very first jobs, and now they finally have a voice—all because the Albanese Labor government supported multi-employer bargaining laws. The SDA is now moving to extend that right across the country to 115,000 McDonald's staff nationwide who have been stuck on award minimums for years.

Why does this matter? Because these are the exact same laws the Liberals and Nationals voted against. Whenever it comes to lifting wages or improving people's lives, they oppose it. Just listen to what their frontbenchers have said. On 24 March 2024, Barnaby Joyce said on Sunrise that Labor's $110 dollar a week minimum wage rise was window dressing. On 11 November 2022, Angus Taylor told Sky News that he opposed multi-employer bargaining because it pushes up wages. On 3 December 2024, Michaelia Cash called Labor reforms 'disastrous'. On 24 September 2024, Sussan Ley warned of radical industrial relations changes. Meanwhile, the workforce wants a better deal. Labor is backing Australians who want a fair go.

Last month, thousands of people across the country gathered to demand justice for Kumanjayi White, a 24-year-old Warlpiri man with a disability who died after being restrained by police in a Coles supermarket in Mparntwe/Alice Springs. He was from the same community as Kumanjayi Walker, who was killed by Northern Territory police officer Zachary Rolfe in 2019. The recent coroner's report into Walker's death confirms what we already know—racist police in this country still treat First People as the enemy. There have been 13 black deaths in custody already this year and at least 599 since the 1991 royal commission, and yet, instead of a national plan, all we hear from this government is excuses. Let me be clear—the federal government can act. It must act, and so far it is choosing not to.

Here are some things the federal government can do today: stop funding states and territories who violate human rights and harm our people; legislate national minimum standards to end torture-like prison conditions and remove hanging points; establish national oversight and monitoring of the implementation of royal commission recommendations; fund our community legal, health, housing and family violence services to self-determine what's best for us; and listen to and support the request of the families. This government has the power. The responsibility couldn't be any clearer. What is missing is the moral compass and the guts to act, Labor. To Yuendumu and all families affected by deaths in custody: I hear you. I stand with you. We won't stop fighting until we get justice.

I want to acknowledge the quiet but life-changing work being done by the Future Bayswater organisation, which, in partnership with St Vincent de Paul, is helping to fight food insecurity across Perth's suburbs. It runs the 6053 Pantry program, providing food and other essential items for those in need. The 6053 Pantry is made possible by a hardworking team of volunteers, some of whom I was fortunate enough to meet when I visited recently. They include nine-year-old Mitchell and seven-year-old Libby—inspiring young locals, already giving their time to help stack shelves at the pantry.

Every year, volunteers—including Mitchell and Libby—also put together Christmas hampers for households doing it tough. These hampers, packed with groceries and festive treats, offer a moment of hope and relief and a reminder to people who are struggling that they are not all alone. In 2024, the 6053 Pantry delivered more than 300 hampers to households—including 13 households from Girrawheen, which is over 16 kilometres away from Bayswater. Many had never reached out for help before.

Sadly, this is what food stress looks like in 2025: families skipping meals so children can eat, elderly people choosing between groceries and medication, and working people turning to charities because their wages no longer cover their basic needs. In the past year alone, demand for food relief across Western Australia has risen by over 20 per cent. It has made food-relief charities and programs, including the 6053 Pantry, more vital than ever. But we should also be deeply concerned that we rely on them so heavily. While the generosity of 6053 Pantry shines a light in dark times, it also forces us to ask ourselves: how better should the Albanese government be supporting— (Time expired)

Five years ago I sat with brave young workers from McDonald's in Murray Bridge in South Australia, who had been subjected to horrible, unlawful, anti-union behaviour and had had their rights at work undermined and abused. What these workers exposed was shocking and not limited to just one store in Murray Bridge. We've heard these stories from Macca's workers reported in the media since: stories of break requests being denied—in one instance, a break request to take basic medication being denied. Others said they were called annoying for asking for water or bathroom breaks.

But, with the support of their union and the SA and NT branch of the SDA in particular, these brave workers chose to stand up together and fight back. From Murray Bridge to the courts, they stood up and fought back. And not only did they see their case settled, but their courage has had ripple effects across the entire industry, with, just last month, the Fair Work Commission agreeing with the SDA that Macca's workers across SA should have the right to bargain together for better pay and safer conditions. This means that more than 5,000 South Australian Macca's workers at 53 stores owned by 18 franchisees will now be able to negotiate together—a direct result of Labor's multi-employer bargaining legislation.

And of course, we are not done yet. Our work has delivered real wage increases for millions of workers across Australia. This week we'll introduce legislation into this place to protect penalty rates and awards. As a government, we will continue to stand with workers—like those brave Macca's workers from Murray Bridge—across the country. We'll stand with them and fight alongside them and the unions who fight for them every single day.

I just want to make some comments about the 48th Parliament being a historic gender-equal parliament: 112 women out of 226 MPs and senators—so 49.56 per cent overall. Women are 46 per cent of the MPs in the House of Representatives. Here in the Senate, women senators are 56.6 per cent of senators. In the Labor caucus, 56 per cent of Labor members and senators are women—69 out of 123 members. A majority of Labor's cabinet are women members. We have a gender-equal cabinet at 52.2 per cent. A majority of Labor's representatives in the House of Representatives are women, 53 per cent of Labor's MPs are women, as are 50 out of the 94 members in the other place, and, here, 19 of the 29 senators are women. The reason this is important is that it makes a difference when it comes to delivering for women around the country.

The time for senators' statements has expired.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Justice, Law and Human Rights Committee of the parliament of Fiji. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

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

Leave granted.

I thank the opposition. I just wanted to say bula to our friends from Fiji. We value deeply our strong relationship with you. It is a bipartisan relationship, and we welcome you to the Senate.

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Minister, yesterday, you told Australians twice that President Trump raised the beef import ban directly with the Prime Minister as part of one of their phone calls. The Prime Minister denied this, and you have been forced to backtrack. Did the Prime Minister or his office direct you to change your story?

No, I made a mistake. President Trump referred to the US beef exports in relation to Australia in his so-called liberation day speech and not in discussions with the Prime Minister. On realising my mistake, I apologised to the PM and I corrected the record with the journalist involved.

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

In the first instance, how were you informed of this so-called mistake, and, given the seriousness of international biosecurity and the potential impact on Australia's beef industry, can you confirm whether you were mistaken, misinformed or misrepresenting the facts when you were forced to retract your claim? And how can Australians have confidence in a minister who cannot keep account of his international trade negotiations consistently?

Thank you, Senator Cash, for your first supplementary question. One of the things my mum taught me as a child was, if you make a mistake, own up straightaway. That's what I did. What do you do when you make a mistake, Senator Cash?

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Minister, are you now prepared to table the full briefing or record of discussions regarding US beef imports between the Prime Minister and the US president and between your own department and US officials so that the Australian people can know who influenced this decision and whether the Prime Minister is telling the truth?

Thank you, Senator Cash, for your second supplementary question. In my experience, the Prime Minister always tells the truth. When I make a mistake, Senator Cash, I own up. I come clean. I realised my mistake. I corrected it as quickly as I could. If other journalists rang me, I corrected it with them. I made a mistake, I've corrected it, and that's, as far as I'm concerned, the end of the matter.

():  This is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The Albanese Labor government's No. 1 priority in its first term was addressing cost-of-living pressures facing Australians. How does the government plan to build on this approach and deliver more cost-of-living relief, in particular by making medicines cheaper?

Can I thank Senator Ananda-Rajah for that excellent question. I know she knows a lot about the health system and understands, as all Labor senators and members do, the importance of delivering cost-of-living relief.

In 2023 we made the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We brought the maximum price of PBS listed medicines down from $42.50 to $30 a script, and we did this for all Australians. Australians have saved more than a billion dollars thanks to our pledge to make medicines cheaper, and now we are doing even more. My colleague Mr Butler will introduce legislation this week to cap the cost of a PBS prescription at $25 a script and continue the freeze for pensioners and concession card holders at $7.70 until the end of the decade. This government, having already made the largest reduction in the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS, is now delivering a further election commitment and delivering more cost-of-living relief to Australians—in particular, to pensioners—because we on this side believe that no Australian should have to skip the medicines their doctor says they need just because they can't afford it.

We all remember how those opposite responded to the Albanese Labor government's implementation of cheaper medicines. We all remember what they did. What can we remember? They opposed it. They opposed it all. They voted against cheaper medicines for Australians. They voted against more money in the pockets of Australians. They voted, over and over again, against cost-of-living relief for Australians. They still haven't listened and they still haven't learnt.

Senator Ananda-Rajah, first supplementary?

During its first term and throughout the recent election campaign, the Albanese Labor government pledged to support Australians with the cost of living by helping them earn more and keep more of what they earn. The government has advocated for four increases to the minimum wage since coming to office, and minimum wages increased by a further 3½ per cent on 1 July. Why can Australians only trust Labor to help them earn more and keep more of what they earn?

What I would say is that Australians can trust the Albanese Labor government to help them earn more and keep more of they earn because that is what we have done. That is what we have done. We have seen wages growing. The government has delivered tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, and we are building on that progress.

Last week the minister for industrial relations introduced a bill in the House to protect—Senator Cash, you will like this—the penalty rates and overtime rates of award reliant workers. We know these last three years have been difficult for many hardworking Australians, and we also know that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the coalition's economic policy. Unlike them, we have advocated every single year since coming to government for increases to the minimum wage for almost three million workers and, as a result, they are better off by— (Time expired)

Senator Ananda-Rajah, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is committed to continuing to deliver responsible cost-of-living relief that helps Australians. How is the government building on its first term cost-of-living relief measures to provide even more relief for Australians?

The government introduced legislation, as you know, that will cut student debts by 20 per cent, a change that will benefit three million Australians and will make HECS repayments fairer, benefiting millions more students in the years to come—people who are not even at university yet. The government has increased paid parental leave to 24 weeks. We've increased individual and family income limits so more Australians can benefit. Superannuation will now be paid on all government paid parental leave. We've also introduced the Commonwealth prac payment for students in crucial fields like nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work to take pressure off when they are flat out doing prac placements while trying to pay the bills. We are supporting new tradies who take up apprenticeships in housing construction, who will receive $10,000 incentive payments on top of their wages.

What is clear from the last term and from the approach in this term is that Labor is for cost-of-living relief and the Liberals are for higher taxes.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Addisons family day care, located in Latrobe, currently supports 50 children from 37 families, operating as a multi-educator family day care service—two services operating out of two different divided facilities on one site, having done so for over 15 years. An arbitrary review of regulations by your department will mean that these 37 families and 50 children will no longer have access to multi-educator family day care if this is no longer permitted. Why is the government closing family day care services for these 50 children and 37 families when access to service in the Latrobe area is so limited and the waiting time for places is over one year?

():  Thank you, Senator Colbeck. I'm not familiar with the case that you've raised with me—a family day care provider in, I think you said, the Latrobe Valley. I think you said—

No, Latrobe municipality.

Latrobe. Tasmania. I think you said there may be proceedings underway to close that facility. I'm not aware of that matter, Senator Colbeck. If there's more information that I can provide you with about that specific matter, I will.

What I will say is that the government is committed to providing Australians with more safe and quality early childhood education across the country. We know that there are many places in the country where families just don't have access to quality early childhood education, be that in long day care settings or be that in family day care settings. That is why we are implementing the findings of the Productivity Commission review which we commissioned, including to build more quality early learning in places that need it most, including our outer suburbs and our regional areas. We have a billion-dollar fund to invest in quality early education and to do that in places that are underserved so that more Australian families can have the benefits of quality early education.

Senator Colbeck, first supplementary?

Abracadabra family day care centre in Devonport in Tasmania has been operating as a multi-educator facility for over 20 years, supporting 33 children from 25 families. The waiting time for a childcare place is also over one year. Minister, why is a government reinterpretation of the regulations closing services for these 33 children from 25 families in an area of childcare shortage, with waiting lists over a year long?

():  Thanks very much, Senator Colbeck. I refer you to my previous answer, which is that I'm not familiar with the case that you've raised with me. I'm happy to try to find further information for you to assist those families. If you'd like to provide me with the material that you have, I'm happy to find out more for you.

Again, we are committed to families having access to quality early childhood education around the country, no matter their postcode and no matter what the parents do. 'No matter their postcode' really means that we are investing in early education in the places that need it most, and 'no matter what the parents do' means that we are replacing the punitive activity test put in place by the coalition and guaranteeing three days early education for all. (Time expired)

Senator Colbeck, second supplementary?

Senator Walsh, in her first answer, talked about implementing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review. Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission report specifically supports enabling two family day care centre educators to operate from a single venue, to improve accessibility and sustainability of these services in these communities. Why are you not supporting that recommendation, impacting on the accessibility of child care in my local communities?

You referred to the Productivity Commission review in your final supplementary, Senator Colbeck. We are doing more on early childhood education than you did on your 10 years in government, including commissioning that report and implementing that report. That report called for a workforce investment, and we are investing $3.6 billion.

A point of order on direct relevance. My reference was to the operation of multiservice childcare centres and the rules around using that specifically, particularly in my community, and also the Productivity Commission recommendation that directly referred to that element, so perhaps the minister might like to come back to the question instead of having a crack at the opposition for something.

The minister is being relevant to the question, and I'll call the minister again to continue answering the question.

You did mention the Productivity Commission report, Senator Colbeck. We are implementing the findings of that report, including investing $3.6 billion in the wages of early childhood educators, which is the most significant measure that could be taken to stabilise the workforce, provide quality early education and provide families with access to care, unlike those opposite. The only thing you ever did in office was restrict access for children to early education. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Senator, the Prime Minister has stated in relation to Gaza:

Quite clearly it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered which was a decision that Israel made in March.

When will your government move from statements such as this to material action to enforce international law, such as joining South Africa's genocide case in the ICJ, Magnitsky sanctions against the whole Netanyahu security cabinet and an end to all military cooperation with Israel?

I thank Senator Shoebridge for the question. As you would know, President, the catastrophic situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world's worst fears. We know that Australians and people around the world are distressed and angry about what is occurring, including the ongoing violence and the deaths of so many innocent civilians, and this is unacceptable. As the Prime Minister said—I think Senator Shoebridge went to this—it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which is the decision that Israel made in March. I would add to that. It is also a breach of decent humanity.

It is the case that Australia is not a central player, but we do add our voice to the calls from the international community. Senator Shoebridge would be aware that as Foreign minister I joined a statement from what was then 27 other countries; since then, others have added themselves to that statement, and that is a good ring. Together with partners, we have called for all parties to abide by international humanitarian law. Together with partners, we have condemned the denial of aid and the killing of civilians. Together with partners, we have been part of the international call for a ceasefire and hostage deal, and we remain unequivocal in our condemnation of Hamas. Also, as you would be aware, we do not provide weapons to Israel and have not for five years since this conflict began. We have sanctioned extremist settler entities and individuals, and we have sanctioned members of the Netanyahu government for the human rights abuses of Palestinians. We have called on Israel to abide by the decisions and findings of the International Court of Justice.

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Given you have repeatedly stated that the Australian government has full knowledge of and concurrence with what happens at Pine Gap, what steps have you taken to ensure the joint US-Australian spy facility at Pine Gap is not being used to assist the Israeli military in its breaches of international law as identified?

A point of order, President: I don't really see how that's relevant to the primary question that Senator Shoebridge asked.

I'll seek some advice on that. I am advised that the question is quite comprehensive in the way it has been drafted; therefore, it drifts across some portfolio areas. As a supplementary question, it does also contain some references to the primary question, so I'm going to invite the minister to answer the question which relates specifically to her portfolio matters.

I understand that the Greens are desperate to try and gain domestic political traction from this conflict—so desperate that they would make the assertions that are being made, which are not responsible and are inaccurate. Senator Shoebridge, I think we all understand some of the political tactics, including by the opposition, in relation to this conflict. I think most Australians are appalled by what they see but also recognise that they don't want the conflict reproduced here by people making inaccurate statements like the one you just made.

I believe the minister has concluded her answer, Senator Shoebridge, so I'm going to invite you to ask your second supplementary.

Foreign Minister, noting those answers, recently leaked flight manifests reported in Declassified Australia have shown that the Royal Australian Air Force earlier this month facilitated the transfer of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel. Will you, Minister, stop this from happening again?

Senator, I again say to you: I have said in this place—and so has the Prime Minister in the other place—that we are not supplying weapons or ammunition to Israel. We have not done so since the Hamas-Israel conflict began and for at least the past five years. I know that will not stop you from spreading misinformation about the longstanding—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Shoebridge?

President, this question is about flight manifests that show the RAAF transferring it and the minister is not being relevant—deliberately personal, but not relevant.

Senator Shoebridge, I'm assuming you are raising a point of order. You need to say that when you stand, not just begin reiterating the question. Is it a point of order?

A point of order, President, on relevance: the question is about the flight manifests—

You do not need to repeat the question. Please resume your seat. The minister is being relevant to your question.

I think everyone watching this will see that the Australian Greens political party are desperate to try and play domestic politics with this dreadful conflict. Shame on you. I have explained to you multiple times—and yet, despite that, you continue to spread misinformation. We are part of the longstanding F-35 consortium. It is essential to our sovereign defence capability, and—

Answer the question, then.

Are you going to keep shouting at me? Is that how you deal with things? Would you like me to sit down?

Order! I've asked you to come to order three times, Senator Shoebridge. Minister, please continue.

As part of the global F-35 supply chain, we contribute components and parts that are nonlethal in nature. (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Walsh. The Albanese Labor government went to the election promising to cut student debt by 20 per cent. We said it would be the first bill that we introduced this term. Can the minister explain why it is so important to reduce HECS debt for our young Australians? More broadly, how will Australians benefit from the government's higher education policy?

Thank you very much, Senator Grogan. Yes, I can. I know of your deep belief that education can change lives. In our last term, we made HECS indexation fairer, and, in so doing, we wiped $3 billion in student debt for the more than three million Australians with a HECS debt.

But that was just the beginning. Young people rightly told us that their debts were too large, and that's why we went to the election with a promise to cut student debt by 20 per cent. We said the first legislation we would introduce would make that happen. Last week, the first week of this new parliament, that is exactly what we did, and this week we have the chance to make it law. We understand what this cost-of-living relief means to people with student debts. It will wipe $16 billion from the HECS debts of Australians. For someone with the average HECS debt of around $27,000, it will mean about $5½ thousand wiped off their debt. And it won't just benefit uni students. This legislation covers all HELP loans, including loans to apprentices and to other VET students.

But, despite the referendum on student debt at the recent election, the newly elected coalition member for Forrest said only hours ago in the other place that this critical relief is 'grossly unfair'. I wonder if he'd say that to one of his 11,000 constituents who have a HECS debt. On this side of the chamber, we know that, whether you're studying at uni or at TAFE, you're developing the skills that keep Australia moving. That's what you get with the Albanese Labor government: a united team delivering on its promises. (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, first supplementary?

Thanks to Senator Walsh for the great response. The Albanese Labor government is making changes to HECS, to wipe student debt—which is great to see—and changes to the thresholds of when young Australians start paying off their HECS debt. Could the minister please outline how these changes are delivering a fairer HECS system for current and future students?

Our legislation before the parliament also makes HECS repayments fairer. We are putting money back in the pockets of people who are just getting started in life. We are a united team, focused on delivering these reforms. If only the same could be said of those opposite! The opposition leader had indicated that they were ready to support reforms to HECS, but now it seems that Senator Henderson—hello, Senator Henderson—has appointed herself the shadow shadow minister for education. Senator Henderson couldn't get her policies up before the election, and now, barely into the second sitting week, Senator Henderson is doing the numbers from the back bench, and it seems that she is having some success. The member for Forrest also said this morning, 'I welcome Senator Henderson's proposal today to amend the bill.' So, while you tear yourselves apart, we will build a better Australia. (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is focused on delivering its commitment to reduce HECS debt and make the system fairer. How important is policy consistency and unity to delivering important reforms like HECS debt relief?

We are indeed fortunate, Senator Grogan, to be a big, united team—united on the things the Australian people sent us here to do, like delivering for students and young people with a clear plan to make HECS fairer. Contrast that with the opposition, who are, in week 2, an absolute rabble. The shadow minister and the self-appointed shadow shadow minister are leaking against each other in the press.

Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson?

A point of order on direct relevance: could you please explain why future students are being denied the discount?

Senator Henderson, that is not a point of order. Senator Walsh, please continue.

Thank you, shadow shadow minister. But this morning Senator Hume said, 'You'd expect some jostling and readjustment so we get our policy position straight.' What that is code for, Senator Hume, is chaos. And it does raise some questions for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Does she agree with Senator Henderson, Senator Hume and the member for Forrest from her home state, or will she back Senator Duniam over Senator Henderson? (Time expired)

Senator Walsh, I remind you to make your comments to the chair.

My question is to the minister representing the minister for disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Wednesday marks one year since the government's response to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability was released, and still there has been no action on key recommendations, meaning disabled people continue to experience violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect at alarming rates. Minister, one year on, why have you not legislated for a disability rights act?

Thank you, Senator Steele-John, for the question. Senator Steele-John, I think everyone in this place understands the significance of that royal commission, and I would hope that across this chamber we would have shared objectives in terms of protecting the rights of people with disability. I think that the stories and the courage of people who spoke with the disability royal commission about their own experiences are a continuing reminder of both some of the things that we must address collectively as a parliament but also the importance of truly listening to the voices of people with disability. If you may indulge me, this is my first opportunity to answer a question in question time after having taken on these responsibilities with the government, and it is my firm intention to work as closely as I may with people with disability to understand their perspectives as we work through some of the changes that are required.

We are working with the disability community to implement reform, and as part of our initial response we are making a range of investments to safeguard people, to uphold rights and to support inclusion. It builds on $3 billion of investments in the last term of parliament to build a more inclusive Australia. We do—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Steele-John?

On relevance: my question did go to the specific of a disability rights act and why it has not been legislated one year on from the release of the government's response.

That was part of your question, Senator Steele-John, and it went more broadly to the results, the outcomes and the evidence of the royal commission. Minister McAllister, I remind you of the whole question. Please continue.

The government is committed to working on these and other questions, Senator Steele-John, to improve community inclusion, mainstream services and disability support so that people with disability can get the support they need and participate on an equal basis. I simply want to draw your attention, in the time available, that we are reporting regularly on implementation progress, and the most recent report was published— (Time expired)

Senator Steele-John, first supplementary?

The disability royal commission recommended the establishment of a national disability commission to be an independent oversight body to take disabled peoples' complaints of abuse and discrimination. This commission still does not exist. When will the government establish a national disability commission?

Thanks very much, Senator Steele-John. The government is, as I've indicated, working with our state and territory counterparts on the many issues that were raised by the royal commission. I also have some additional information to provide to you in relation to your primary question, including information about options to reform the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. I can advise you that the Attorney-General's Department has been progressing work on options to reform this act and will shortly be commencing consultations with people with disability, their carers and families, employers, unions, educational bodies, small business and the broader community to participate and share their views on the best way to update the act. This review of the act is one part of the response to the commission, ensuring that Commonwealth antidiscrimination legislation remains fit for purpose.

Senator Steele-John, second supplementary?

July is Disability Pride Month, a time for disabled people to celebrate who we are as individuals and as a community. Minister, what community led engagements have you attended to mark Disability Pride Month?

What I can inform the Senate is that, since becoming the minister, I have greatly enjoyed and welcomed my opportunities to meet with disabled people and understand their perspectives and worldviews. For me, that has meant trying to engage with the most diverse representatives of that community possible. It's meant visiting facilities people attend to undertake activities. It's meant meeting with representative organisations. It's meant being invited into people's homes and sitting around the kitchen table and understanding their perspectives on disability.

This is an immense and rich community with a rich political tradition that has, in some ways, culminated in the campaign to establish the NDIS—but it is not confined to that by any means. It is my great hope that I will be able to work closely, respectfully and thoughtfully with that community during my term as minister. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator McCarthy. Minister, if the decision to allow US-processed beef from Canada and Mexico was genuinely based on science, why the urgency that has precluded a transparent and open consultation with the most impacted primary producers, the largest regional employers and, of course, the thousands of Australian workers potentially impacted?

I thank the senator for her question. I'm a little surprised by the question, actually, given that this was a process that occurred directly under those opposite and has been going for 10 years. I'm not quite sure what it is that the opposition don't understand about this, other than the fact that there is hypocrisy being shown by these questions in regard to science.

Opposition senators interjecting—

There absolutely is. This has gone on for nearly a decade, and we know that there has been a process that has been thoroughly done through this. Senator McDonald, you know that as much as anyone does.

Senator McCarthy, I remind you to direct your answers through the chair. Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Minister, can you then guarantee that there are no biosecurity issues or concerns for human health with this decision?

I thank the senator for her question. It's very curious that they're worried about biosecurity given that they've no interest in net zero with what the other side are trying to do in terms of looking after the care of this country. President, I will say this: Minister Farrell has made it very clear, and so has—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

You see, those opposite laugh because they are so divided about what they are doing in relation to this space. They laugh about it and they don't care.

Senator McDonald.

On relevance: this is a rambling—I'm not sure what, but it's certainly not relevant.

The minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen.

Thank you for that, because I am absolutely being relevant. We do care very much about biosecurity. We do know that we have done everything we can in this space given the mess that you left in underfunding that whole area.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cash.

Again, it's relevance. The question was very direct: can the minister guarantee there are no biosecurity issues or concerns with this decision?

I will make this point to the earlier point of order: if you want your question answered then don't interject, because the minister is entitled to take those interjections. Secondly, in response to the matter just raised by Senator Cash, the minister is being directly relevant.

We certainly are not compromising on biosecurity.

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

Minister, will you support a transparent and honest inquiry into the decision on US processed beef from Mexico and Canada?

As the members opposite know, this has been going on for 10 years.

This is not my first speech. Senator McDonald has pipped me at the post. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator McCarthy. Your government recently opened a new front on its war on Australian farmers by lifting science based restrictions on United States beef imports without any consultation with our own beef producers. This follows the decimation of our sheep industry with your cruel ban on live exports, most keenly felt in my home state of Western Australia. Minister, why is your government intent on crushing these world-leading livestock industries and the lives of Australian farmers?

I thank the senator for his question, the premise of which is completely untrue in terms of this government's approach to our agriculture sector. In fact, we have a minister who is very, very adamant about getting out across Australia to work with our farmers and with the agriculture industry and wants to see the support that only we have been able to provide, given the mess the other side had left the industry in.

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

After this latest attack on beef producers, the harm caused to sheep farmers and the naked theft of more water from irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin, will the minister please inform the Senate which other rural industries are in the government's crosshairs?

I certainly reject the question outright. As I said in my previous response, our government—in particular our minister—is very much assisting the farmers across Australia.

Senator Whitten, second supplementary.

Food imported into Australia is usually subject to strict labelling requirements so Australians can choose the better, safer, cleaner food produced locally. What measures will your government take to ensure Australians know the true origins of beef imported from the US but sourced from countries with known biosecurity or health risks?

As I have said in this answer and previously, we are not compromising on any biosecurity.

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, it's not. It comes in line with an assumption that's absolutely incorrect—that we are not doing our jobs. We are. Australia is a trading nation, with one in four jobs relying on trade, and our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this.

Not the question.

I am referring to the question around beef. Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking exports.

Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan.

On relevance: the question was clearly aimed at testing requirements for the importation of beef. Speaking about trade does not go to relevance to that question.

Thank you, Senator Canavan. As I'm sure you will recall, the question also had a preamble, so the minister is being relevant. Minister McCarthy, please continue.

They just don't want to hear about beef. Last year, it was worth $14 billion, supported by reinstated and improved market access. Exports have increased by 55 per cent since we came to government.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Given the member for New England has introduced a bill to repeal Australia's legislated net zero target and given the growing public discontent over skyrocketing energy prices, how does the government justify clinging to a policy that delivers neither environmental certainty nor energy affordability for Australian families and Australian businesses?

Thank you, Senator Babet; I do sincerely thank you for this question. I reflect that it's not necessary for Senator Canavan or Senator Antic or Senator Nampijinpa Price to ask this question, because it's all one team over there. On the question of policy certainty around energy, on the approach that the Australian government takes on climate change, and on rebuilding and modernising our electricity system, there's complete unanimity across all of that show over there, who didn't learn the lesson in 2022 and certainly didn't learn the lesson in 2025.

Senator Ayres, I am going to draw you back to the question.

President, respectfully, could I submit that the question does go to net zero and that the minister's wind-up, albeit quite a lengthy one, actually is about the policy position on net zero.

Thank you, Senator Wong. I did allow some leniency for Senator Ayres to get to the question. When he hadn't in what I thought was a timely manner, I drew the question to his attention. Minister Ayres.

You were very lenient, President—very lenient indeed! And I was getting ahead of myself. Net zero, for Senator Babet's information—through you, President—is really a basic maths concept. I just want to set it out to provide a little bit of clarity for the team over there. We will have reached net zero emissions when the amount of greenhouse gas that we emit into the atmosphere is no more than what is removed. Senator Babet and Senator Cash have asked—I should have included you, Senator Cash, in the list of potential askers, the silly-billies over there on energy policy—

Australians are paying more.

If you're inclined to interject, Senator Cash, perhaps you could explain how it is that you've been defying your leader and repudiating her authority already. On the first weekend of a sitting fortnight, you're up and about— (Time expired)

Senator Ayres, I remind you to direct your comments to the chair. Senator Babet, first supplementary?

That was excellent; thank you for that. Minister, since the government adopted net zero, it has repeatedly promised to lower our energy bills. Since we got net zero, electricity has gone up by 31 per cent and gas has gone up by 40 per cent. Why hasn't net zero lowered our power bills as we were promised, and do you guarantee, Minister, that net zero is going to lower our bills in the future?

One thing that I can guarantee, Senator Babet, is that the cheapest form of energy, the cheapest electricity system for Australia, if you're remotely interested in certainty, affordability and reliability, is renewables backed up by storage and backed up by gas. That's the truth of the matter.

That's why what's left of anyone with a sensible position coming from the opposition on the other side, I assume, is out there briefing journalists to say, 'We're desperately unhappy, actually, with the position that's been adopted by some of the characters over here.' The one thing you can guarantee will drive up electricity prices and drive away investment in Australian manufacturing capability in the energy system is the sort of policy incoherence we've seen over there.

Senator Babet, a second supplementary?

Minister, will your government rule out introducing additional taxes, carbon levies or price based mechanisms in the future to enforce this net zero compliance on Australian businesses and consumers?

The government's policy is very straightforward, and it's there for everybody to see. And it was endorsed strongly at the last election. And we've got a job to do to get about continuing to make sure that we're building more electricity generation and more transmission capability so that firms like Tomago Aluminium have got access to the low-priced electricity that they need. We've got a job to do: delivering for Australians. It's not the kind of complete policy incoherence that is dominating what has gone on over here. And you see what happened last week. The first hour of House of Representatives this morning really displayed what's on show—

I have a point of order on relevance to the question. Will you give your word that there's no increased taxes to the renewables that you're pushing?

Thank you, Senator Hanson. The minister is being relevant.

There certainly won't be increased taxes. What there'll be is certainty—certainty about what our framework is. Unless the old 'Joyce and Boyce show' over here—all the bulls in the paddock over there—desperately try to undermine the poor old Leader of the Opposition— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Saturday, the CFMEU announced that it would expand operations in New South Wales. The New South Wales CFMEU boss, Michael Crosby, said:

We are looking at large multiple complex residential construction … [The move] may push up costs …

Given they are supposed to be in administration and have been shown to increase the cost of construction by up to 30 per cent, will the government intervene to stop this CFMEU expansion?

I thank Senator Bragg for his question. I note that he is one of those on that side who does, I think, still support net zero. He's not joining in Senator Cash's, Senator Canavan's and Mr Joyce's campaign to undermine their leader, which is, I have to say, quite an extraordinary sight to watch.

But, Senator Bragg, I will come to your question.

Honourable senators interjecting—

It's only a minor detour, to be fair. I was not aware, Senator, and I will get further information of the details of everything that you have outlined. Obviously, we had AUKMIN over the weekend, and I was engaged primarily on other matters.

We're 45 seconds in.

Because I never know how to answer anything, Senator—that's right! I would say to you, Senator Bragg—and I'll see if I can get some further information specifically on New South Wales—as you would know, we have made our position in relation to the CFMEU clear. You will recall that the government has put in place an administration and administrator in relation to the CFMEU. You would be aware that the government has been very clear about our view in relation to the CFMEU, and we will continue to work to ensure that the sort of corruption and misconduct and alleged corruption and misconduct that have been both found and asserted are stamped out. As I have said on multiple occasions, we are a labour movement. We know the benefit of trade unions for working people, and we also know that organised crime has no place inside the trade union movement.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Treasury says that the government won't hit the Labor Party's target of 1.2 million new houses by the end of the decade. Perhaps as part of the advice you are seeking, Minister, you can include this question: can the government guarantee that the CFMEU's latest efforts won't push up construction costs around the country and push housing completion figures even lower?

I think we all know that one of the primary drivers of housing prices going up is a lack of supply, which is why the government has—both in the context of the election and in our first term—invested in a very large set of housing policies which deal with both demand and supply. I would make the point, Senator Bragg, that you and others were amongst those who prevented and held up some of those key supply measures during the last term, and you now complain about housing supply and prices. I would also make the point about prices that we don't believe that the answer to housing shortages is (a) simply cutting wages or (b) implementing the sort of policy that you came to the election with, which was super for housing, which would have driven up housing prices by more than $90,000 in capital cities.

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

The government's efforts to put the CFMEU into administration appear to have failed. Will your government now consider supporting the coalition's Housing Investment Probity Bill, which would ban CFMEU involvement in all Housing Australia Future Fund projects?

I reject the proposition that Senator Bragg puts. He makes an assertion about the government's actions in relation to the CFMEU, and I again say in this place that we have taken the strongest possible action by placing the CFMEU into administration. That is the fact. We've taken the strongest possible action in placing the CFMEU in administration. The administrator, I understand, has already terminated a number of officials involved in some of the behaviour that was reported, and the reported behaviour was unacceptable. The administrator is placing—

They're expanding into residential construction.

Well, I know you don't want to listen to this, Senator Cash, but we are actually doing the work of putting that union into administration in order to clean it up, because that is the right thing to do for working people and for the economy. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. In May this year, the Albanese Labor government was re-elected with a mandate to keep acting on climate change and to keep delivering an affordable and cleaner energy system. One of the signature measures was Labor's commitment to deliver cheaper home batteries to bring down electricity costs for Australian households. What progress has the government made on this commitment and its broader work in delivering a new and affordable energy system?

Senator Ghosh, thank you very much for that question. We have made quite a bit of progress indeed. The policy of reducing the cost of household batteries, which was endorsed by the people of Australia in the last election, is building on Australia's success with rooftop solar. Now, indeed, from 1 July, we are implementing cheaper home batteries, and over 15,000 Australian households across the country have taken up those batteries. Since 1 July—28 days—that's 15,000 Australian households already. That's 536 households every single day, signing up, buying batteries, delivering cheaper prices for them and doing a lot of work to stabilise our electricity grid.

How much does it cost?

It slashes the price of a battery—Senator McDonald talks about cost—by 30 per cent and, for many of those households, will bring down their energy bills by up to 90 per cent. This involves tens of thousands of people in electorates like Gilmore, where 214 Australian households have taken advantage of the scheme; Macquarie, where 200 Australian households have done so; the seat of Hunter, where 197 Australian households have taken up this offer and delivered cheaper power and cheaper batteries for themselves; Flinders, where 109 households have done so; the seat of Wright, where 238 have done so; and, in Western Australia, where Senator Cash was indulging in a right-wing ideological frolic over the weekend, the seats of Mayo and Tangney. All lead their states.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The Labor seat of— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I have Senator Ghosh on his feet.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Ghosh, I haven't called you yet. I'm still waiting for order. Senator Ghosh, first supplementary?

Investment in energy infrastructure is key to delivering clean and affordable power to households and businesses. Minister, what progress has been made on delivering renewable energy investment and deployment?

You're right, Senator Ghosh, that cheaper home batteries doesn't just deliver benefits for those Australian households—with 15,000 that have already taken advantage of the scheme—it also delivers system-wide benefits. It's not the only Albanese government policy on the electricity system that is breaking records. Our policies across the economy are helping drive down emissions and deliver on our targets, with a record renewable uptake. Energy and industrial emissions are lower than when we came to government, with policies like the safeguard reforms, the Capacity Investment Scheme and the Cheaper Home Batteries Program helping turn around a decade of denial and neglect that drove disinvestment, fewer Australian jobs and more Australian jobs flooding offshore because of the policy incoherence that was on display in the Morrison period and is back on display here in Canberra right now. (Time expired)

Senator Ghosh, second supplementary?

During the election campaign, the Albanese Labor government made meeting our climate goals and delivering investment in cheap and clean energy a key pillar of the pitch to the Australian people. Why is it necessary to provide clear signals to the market about the policy approach to this issue? What are the risks if clear signals are not sent?

Thanks, Senator Ghosh, for that question. Policy certainty actually matters. It gives business the confidence to invest. This government is giving the market the signals that it requires to deliver and move ahead with major energy infrastructure projects that provide clean power and affordable power for Australians. But what signal is being provided by those opposite? Senator Paterson, who knows that the opposition is in chaos, argues—interestingly for a senator—that they are also irrelevant. He said: 'Our position on this issue is academic. We are in opposition.' Australians can see the chaos, and abrogating your responsibility as an alternative party of government to take the policy process seriously and deliver some kind of certainty for Australians and Australian business really shows us how— (Time expired)

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I wish to add to an answer from question time today. I undertook during question time to provide further information to Senator Colbeck regarding his specific question about family day care in Latrobe. I can advise Senator Colbeck that the case he referred to was about a decision of the Tasmanian early education and care regulator, the Education and Care Unit in the Tasmanian Department for Education, Children and Young People. This decision was consistent with the national law and also consistent with the practice of regulators in other states and territories. Thanks, Senator Colbeck.

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers to coalition questions asked today.

I want to focus on the questions related to the lifting of the biosecurity restrictions. There are two key points that I want to address in taking note of the answers given to those questions. The first one relates to the answer that Senator Farrell gave in relation to having to correct the record, and the second relates to the significant industry matters that are occurring right now for farmers right across this country. We know farmers are distressed and very concerned about this government's handling of all things agricultural, and certainly when it comes to the live export and key industries like sheep and beef—as I know, in Western Australia.

Initially, regarding what we've seen with Senator Farrell's answer to the question about the contradicting information that was provided to the Prime Minister, maybe Senator Farrell wishes, like we all do, that the Prime Minister was able to have a conversation with the President of the United States. In giving the answer that he gave earlier in an interview, he was hoping, like all of us, that the Prime Minister would have direct conversations with the President of the United States, but we know that's not happening. We wish the government well in that regard because it is important to Australia's position to be able to have that direct dialogue with the United States—our most important international partner, a relationship that we must foster and develop. But it is concerning when there is this conflicting information at very senior levels of government. It's not just a backbencher getting something wrong here—this is the trade minister misrepresenting the information and misrepresenting the reality of what was actually occurring. It's good that he has corrected the record but, nonetheless, it is concerning that those sorts of facts aren't front of mind. We know that there haven't been conversations directly between the Prime Minister and the United States.

This issue of lifting the biosecurity restrictions is very concerning because the quality of our beef is held in internationally high regard, and we've got to make sure that is maintained. We are the envy of the world when it comes to our biosecurity of our beef here in this country. We are able to export it across the world because of those very high standards, and to see those standards undermined by any sort of watering down is incredibly concerning. This is why we should have an inquiry into this. We should understand fully all the information that was provided and that was used to make a determination as to whether or not this is a sensible thing to do. I would urge the government to consider getting behind the coalition's request for an inquiry into this matter, because we need to ensure integrity. We need to ensure that our system holds integrity. Without the government going along with that and opening themselves up and being fully transparent then we can't be sure. Who is to say that we don't undermine our standards and see a situation where this enviable position that we currently have across the world is undermined. We have already seen the impact and the cost that would have in my home state of Western Australia, with the absolute breaking of the hearts of farmers across the state in relation to the live export ban on sheep. We've seen their hearts broken, and I know you know very well, Deputy President Brockman, as a fellow Western Australian senator, the impact that that is happening. Well, if we see an undermining of the beef industry in Western Australia—and, indeed, right across the country—that would be devastating. We know that this government doesn't have a good track record. We know that the previous time they were in government, under prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, they had a devastating impact on beef with their illegal implementation of those— (Time expired)

It's good to be back here in this chamber for a new term, but, unfortunately, being back here also means that we need to deal with and debate some of the issues that do come up from time to time, and it's a bit brave for the coalition to come back into this place after the election period and lecture the government on biosecurity, given that it was this government, when we first came into power back in 2022, that had to fix our biosecurity system, which was not just broken but also underfunded. The government has worked backwards in order to make sure that we continue to have one of the world's best biosecurity systems, if not the world's best. It is envied and is really considered to be the benchmark for biosecurity when it comes to trading nations.

Like many in this place, I too am very passionate about Australian agriculture and our meat industry. I'm very proud to be co-chair, with Senator McDonald, of the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat group, which is about promoting our quality beef.

It is worth mentioning some of the facts that are before us when we are dealing with this issue, at the moment, regarding the United States and the government's decision to deal with the US around the importation of US beef. I just want to lay out before us a couple of facts, just to be absolutely clear about what we are dealing with.

When the Liberals and Nationals were in government, they did absolutely nothing to change the rules around importation—absolutely nothing. Beef from the United States has been able to be imported into this country since 2019, when those opposite were in government.

The US beef imports review has been ongoing for some time now—as the minister explained, I think close to a decade—and it has undergone a very rigorous science and risk based assessment for almost 10 years. The decision by the Australian federal department of agriculture has been undertaken in the same way that we deal with any other matter that relates to market access here in Australia.

It's important to understand that Australia is an island nation. One in four jobs are reliant on trade. And our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this. Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking exports, every single year, and it's worth around $14 billion.

On the back of all that, it's worth noting that the reason we're in this situation today is because of the free trade deal that we have with our great friends over in the US—the Australia-US free trade arrangement—that was signed by the former Howard government. Mark Vaile, a member of the National Party, when he was minister, went to the US and signed this agreement back in 2004. So this is not a new set of circumstances that we are dealing with.

It's fair to say that those in the government—and, I'm assuming, most on the other side, particularly in the Liberal Party—are very open to free trade. But when the National Party come in here and talk about these issues in the very first fortnight of a new sitting, you do have to question what is going on internally, in their party, rather than externally, because the only way that I can see what is happening right now is that the government has done everything that we should be doing. If those on the other side were in power, they would have done absolutely the same process; they would have adopted the very same risk-assessment processes that are in place, that we are going through right now. So there is nothing new about what the government has concluded with its review.

It's also worth noting that a number of key bodies in the industry—like Meat & Livestock Australia, and others, like Cattle Australia—have also been very supportive about this process, acknowledging that Australians, to be frank, are still more likely to buy Australian beef, because we have such a strong supply of quality produce here in Australia that whatever may be imported from the US may actually not be able to penetrate such a very strong market. So the concerns that are being articulated and vented by members of the National Party, quite frankly, will not fly very far. That is why the government is backing the scientists and the department when it comes to the review that is being conducted by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and all the officials that have been working on this process for the last 10 years. (Time expired)

I also rise to take note of all answers to coalition questions during question time. I had to pause for a moment when I was listening to the questions from Senator Bragg in relation to the HAFF and the CFMEU. We are in a housing crisis in this country. We have been for a number of years. One of the most significant inquiries that I sat on in my committee work for the Senate was the housing and rental crisis inquiry, where I heard the stories of people unable to afford somewhere to live or to have a roof over their heads. That's the Australian dream—to own your own home—and I don't think it is an unreasonable dream, either. I think it's fair to suggest that, if you work hard, you do all the right things and you choose to buy your own home, you should be able to do that.

What really bothered me was the fact that the CFMEU announced the other day that they're going to be expanding into New South Wales. I was sitting here wondering, 'Is there any other organisation or entity in this country that has actually expanded whilst it's in administration?' I couldn't think of anybody. I could be wrong. I thought it was extraordinary that, just before the end of the last term, the CFMEU went into administration because of all the things that were wrong and their significantly egregious behaviour, particularly in Victoria—and we heard some stories recently in Queensland. They went into administration, but guess what? They said, 'We'll expand into New South Wales now so that we can broaden the damage, we can harm more people and we can ensure that the reasons we were put into administration in Victoria can be spread further around the country.'

The madness of what I'm saying and what I'm suggesting is that it's real. This has actually happened. What did the New South Wales CFMEU boss Michael Crosby say? He said:

… we are looking at large multiple complex residential construction—

and that it may 'push up costs'. So they are coming into large-scale residential construction in NSW with the knowledge that it may increase the costs—not 'may' but will likely increase the costs—of those dwellings when we have a housing crisis. When people already can't afford the cost of dwellings, they're going to make them even more expensive.

We know from the information that my colleague Senator Bragg has shared with us many times that those costs are around 30 per cent more. Let's have a think about that. Paying $800,000 for a unit in Sydney is probably entry level in many places. Add 30 per cent to that. That's an extra $240,000. That takes that unit's cost from $800,000 to $1,040,000. Let's go one step up: a $900,000 unit. An extra $270,000 takes the cost to about $1.170 million, just under $1.2 million. That's the cost of having the CFMEU participate in what they call 'large, multiple-complex residential construction', and we're going to sit here and say that that is okay. I don't understand.

This threatens to kill off homeownership for millennials completely. If young people weren't already so disheartened by the fact that they may never own their homes, this is a further nail in the coffin of that dream. That is under the watch of the Albanese Labor government, because they cannot hold the CFMEU to account. The government cannot stop the CFMEU from spreading their damage across our country. We should not stand by and allow that.

When the union was placed in administration in August last year, the Prime Minister said:

… there's no place for corruption or intimidation in the building industry.

Yet it is there plainly for all of us to see. Yet it continues. It continues with the further infiltration of the CFMEU into New South Wales despite the damage that they have caused in Victoria and Queensland. This Labor government has no interest in probity. It has no interest in transparency, and it has no interest in stopping the CFMEU. (Time expired)

May I note that this is not my first speech. I hear those opposite talk about the CFMEU, but let's be really clear: this is just another attack on working people. It's an attack on working people, their conditions, their wages and their wellbeing. Union members built this country. There's no doubt about it. Union members are not embroiled in corruption, like some of the things we've seen in the media. I think Senator Wong addressed it really well, in saying that we couldn't have taken any stronger action to place the CFMEU into administration and that corruption has no place in unions or workplaces. But most union members are workers in a workplace. They are decent, good people, and this is just another attack on union members.

Building homes and helping Australians get into homes is one of this government's absolute highest priorities. Those opposite, and Senator Bragg, have no credibility on housing, having cut housing investment while they were in government and having opposed every housing investment made by Labor. Those opposite delayed houses being built by up to two years, which is an absolute disgrace. The only answer that the coalition has to the housing shortage is to cut wages and have workers working for cents in the dollar, which is not the Australian way. The fact is that wages have not been driving up the cost of housing; wages have been growing more slowly than other costs in construction. For 10 years the LNP complained about the CFMEU but did nothing to clean it up. It's been this government that put the CFMEU into administration and has been supporting the union to clean itself up and to be able to represent its members.

More broadly, when it comes to unions, let's not forget that unions have created some of the safest workplaces in Australia. Trade unions are there to support their members and other workers in their workplaces, which is something that's often forgotten or that some people might even take for granted. Health and safety is absolutely paramount in workplaces, and it's core union business. I, and this side of the chamber, stand with working people to have safer workplaces. We won't stand for attacks on that.

When it comes to housing, might I add that this government has an ambitious housing agenda. We took plans to the last election to have further shared equity schemes and five per cent deposits for first home buyers, which is a game changer. We talk about the great Australian dream. Well, the great Australian dream is to own your own house, but it's also to go to work to earn a fair wage for a fair day's work. It's to participate in collective organising when you want to. We want workers to have their fair share of power in their workplaces, and their trade unions will help them do that. So it's really hard to sit over here and hear those opposite attack working people and union members. It's something that we don't stand for. First home buyers have been struggling to get into the market. There's no secret about that. We absolutely want to see more people get into more homes. We want to see the supply shortage filled, and we want to see more homes built as quickly as possible. Labor's policies support homes to be built.

I might talk quickly about beef imports. I come from a family that has a small farm. My brother is a beef cattle farmer. Australian beef is the best beef in the world. I absolutely love a good steak—a good Australian steak and a good Tasmanian steak. As Senator Ciccone said before, when we came into government we took steps to repair the Public Service after a decade of cuts and degradation, and our biosecurity laws will not be compromised.

I too rise to take note of answers, specifically the answers given to questions asked by Senators Cash and McDonald around the decision by the Labor government to allow US beef exports into Australia when those beef exports have been raised in, and imported into the US from, Canada and Mexico. To be honest, I don't really give two hoots what the Minister for Trade and Tourism said and whether he was misquoting the Prime Minister or whether the Prime Minister made a mistake and did have a conversation with Donald Trump. Let's face it: we know that it's been 266 days now since President Trump was elected, and the Prime Minister has yet to have a meeting with the President, our most important strategic partner. The Prime Minister hasn't even managed to get a meeting with him. So let's put aside who said what and when. I'm actually more concerned about the decision itself.

This is not a small deal. We can take the word of the trade minister and the Prime Minister that the decision to allow US beef into Australia, even if it was born and bred in Canada and/or Mexico, has nothing to do with the trade sanctions that have been placed on Australia by the US, nothing to do with Trump's tariffs. We can take everybody's word for it. If that is the case and if we take everybody's word for it, that's fine, but why not just have an independent review of the decision, because it's not a small deal? Everybody around the chamber has spoken about the quality of Australian beef and why it is so important. Everybody around the chamber has spoken about what an important export it is for Australia, and that is at risk when biosecurity laws change. It wasn't that long ago that the Prime Minister was up there, saying, in response to President Trump's tariffs, that we would have no changes to our biosecurity laws, and then, all of a sudden, we do. Yes, it may be a result of a 10-year review—that's fine, but let's just have an independent review of the decision so that we can rest assured and sleep easy at night knowing that there is no risk to our beef industry.

If, though, this was a decision that was prompted by the trade tariffs that were put on Australia's goods and services, then just be straight with us, because that's not the worst thing in the world either. We just want to know what the motive is. These trade sanctions, these tariffs, have massive implications for so many of our exporters. We just want to know, just want to be clear, if that was the motive. If it was the motive, I don't mind, as I said, but what did you get in return? Did you actually get a commitment from the US to lift the tariffs, and, if you didn't, why are we changing the biosecurity laws?

I heard Senator Ciccone say, 'It's because we've got a free trade agreement with the US.' Absolutely, we do, and we are good global citizens, and we abide by our free trade agreements, but the US hasn't abided by its part of the bargain on the free trade agreement, has it? So what is it that we have we given up here and for what? And what is it that we will give up next? If we haven't secured an exemption from those tariffs, what is it that we need to do next? Do we need to make changes to the PBS? Are we going to make changes to our news bargaining code and have our tummies tickled by the tech sector? Is this what the Labor government is prepared to give up to get an exemption from those tariffs? We know that there's a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium, we know that there's a 10 per cent baseline tariff on all goods and services, we know that pharmaceuticals are next in the firing line, and we know that copper exporters are also facing sanctions. So, if this is the first step, that's okay, but just be straight about it.

Let's be clear: there are no second chances with Australia's biosecurity. If we have created a brand-new threat, we should be very clear about that. If, as we are told, our biosecurity is not under threat, if there is a 99.9 per cent chance that we're all okay, that still translates to a one in 1,000 chance that we're not okay. And that's something that has to be acknowledged. So, if you're going to sell us upstream with this decision, Labor, that is absolutely fine, but let's be clear about it. Let's have an independent review. That's not too much to ask. That's not too much to ask, because, even if this decision is made with a pure heart, the timing smells off. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Senator McAllister) and the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today.

July is Disability Pride Month, a time to celebrate who we are as a community, both as individuals and collectively. It's about tackling head-on the stereotypes that seek to limit us. It's a call on the broader community to unlearn ableism, and it is a time to join together as a community and demand not just recognition but justice. Disability Pride Month isn't about pretending it's easy; it's a statement, saying, 'We are here; we deserve respect and equity,' and it's a call for action, for our allies to fight alongside us. Disability Pride Month is a time when disabled people across the globe, including right here in Australia, are facing cuts, erosion of rights and exclusion at the hands of politicians. Disability pride month marks the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Australia needs its own disability rights act. The royal commission into disability abuse called for one, yet, years on, this government has failed to introduce one. We need a disability rights act to enshrine our rights in law—our right to be at the centre of the decisions that affect our lives—because, when disabled people are not at the table, the consequences are severe. Cuts to the NDIS, reducing access to income support, as in the United Kingdom, and decisions being made by governments, agencies and bureaucrats that have never lived our reality—that is systemic discrimination. Disabled people will not be shut out, locked up or hidden away for the convenience of others. We continue to be excluded in our workspaces and our workplaces, including in this parliament. But we will persevere and we will win through to justice for all disabled people in Australia. (Time expired)

For clarity, I seek to take note of the answer from the Foreign minister, Senator Wong. Those were extraordinary responses from the Foreign minister. First, we saw the Labor Party finally acknowledge that they are sending F-35 fighter parts into Israel. Of course, they deny that F-35 fighter parts have anything to do with weapons. I think the term used was 'the nonlethal parts' of a fighter jet—that is what Australia supplies to Israel. If it weren't about genocide, and if it weren't about Australia arming a military to conduct a genocide, those kinds of answers would be mocked, those kinds of answers would be pilloried and they would be seen as something close to comic relief. But this is not a comedy; this is about the Albanese government sending weapons parts into a genocide, and it's obscene that they continue to deny the reality of what they're doing.

We also saw the truth about where Labor has moved to in terms of taking action to stop the appalling breaches of international law by the Israeli government. We had the Prime Minister finally acknowledge—people would say 18 months too late—the gross breaches of international law, using mass starvation as a weapon of war, by Israel. He finally admitted that. But then when they're asked the following day in parliament, 'What will you do to stop Israel breaching international law?' the answer we got was nudder, nothing, zero, zilch. Maybe there'll be another stern tweet, maybe there'll be another stern letter, maybe they'll escalate the language. What we know is that the extremist Netanyahu security cabinet will not care about cranky words or rising rhetoric from the likes of the Prime Minister or the foreign minister of Australia. What will matter is ending all defence cooperation with Israel and cancelling almost $2 billion of weapons contracts that Australia has with Israeli weapons manufacturers.

I will finish with this. When it comes to questions on Pine Gap, the embarrassment and the avoidance was clear for all to see. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 17 July 2025 of John Owen Stone AO, a senator for Queensland from 1987 to 1990.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death on 17 July 2025 of John Owen Stone AO, former senator for Queensland and Secretary to the Treasury, places on record its gratitude for his service to the parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

Senator John Stone was a towering figure in Australian public life—an economist, a public servant, a parliamentarian and a fearless advocate—whose contributions to national debate have left an enduring imprint on our national institutions.

Born in Perth in 1929, John Stone was the eldest child of Horace Stone, a wheat farmer, and Eva Myee, a primary school teacher. Stone attended Perth Modern School just a few years above Bob Hawke, and his academic brilliance was evident early. He graduated from the University of Western Australia and, like Hawke, went on to study at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.

A leading disciple of what became known as economic rationalism in the 1980s, Stone began initially as a student of mathematical physics before switching to economics at Oxford. His intellectual rigour and analytical precision led him to the Commonwealth Treasury, where he served with distinction for over two decades. He was appointed secretary to the Treasury in 1979, but, as is said of him in the Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate, he had already established himself as the principal policymaker and spokesman of the department. In that role, he became one of the most influential economic voices in the country. He was a staunch advocate for fiscal discipline, transparency in public finance and the independence of Australia's economic institutions. His tenure coincided with a period of significant global economic upheaval, and he navigated those challenges with clarity and conviction. Stone was considered one of Australia's leading fiscal hawks and economic reformers, but he could be quite a contrarian too. He was a free marketeer who opposed the Whitlam government's bold tariff cut in 1973 as well as the timing of the floating of the Australian dollar in 1983, but to dwell on that would be to miss his pragmatism and his willingness to change his opinion as circumstance demanded.

The fact that John Stone could serve treasurers as different as Jim Cairns and John Howard is a testament to his belief in an independent Public Service. When Paul Keating was appointed Treasurer in March 1983, some urged him to replace Stone with a more amenable secretary. Keating refused, signalling that he and Stone both placed a premium on the contest of big ideas.

In 1987, he entered the Australian Senate as a National Party senator for Queensland. Though his time in this chamber was brief, his contribution was substantial. He brought to the Senate a rare depth of economic understanding and a fierce independence of thought. Senator Stone believed deeply in the importance of sound economic policy as the foundation of national prosperity. He was sceptical of excessive government intervention and wary of inflationary pressures. His views often placed him at odds with prevailing political winds, but he never wavered in his commitment to what he believed was economically prudent and nationally responsible.

I acknowledge that Senator Stone's views—and this is possibly the understatement of the week—on questions of economic management often diverged from my own. He was a critic of Keynesian stimulus and wary of redistributive policies. In a democracy, particularly a democracy like Australia's democracy, it's the contest of ideas that strengthens our institutions. Senator Stone's contributions to that contest were formidable, and his presence here and his role in Australian public life elevated the quality of debate in this place. His speeches were marked by clarity, conviction and a deep concern for Australia's long-term economic wellbeing. His clashes with Labor's finance minister, then finance minister Peter Walsh, were a regular highlight for senators to watch in those years, I'm told.

It seems misleading to speak of John Stone's retirement. He retained an intellectual leadership role in Australian conservative politics. In the HR Nicholls Society, in the Samuel Griffith Society, in the Australian newspaper and in Quadrant, his voice remained a big deal. He wrote prolifically, offering commentary on economic, cultural and political issues. Whether one agreed with him or not—and I rarely did—his arguments were always grounded in principle and presented with intellectual honesty. In recognition of that service, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia, a fitting tribute to a man who gave so much to Australia.

Today we honour former senator Stone not only for his achievements but for his unwavering commitment to public service. He was a man of ideas, of principal and of deep conviction. His legacy will endure in the institutions that he helped shape and the debates that he enriched. On behalf of the Senate and of the government, I extend our condolences to his family, his friends and all those who mourn his passing. May he rest in peace.

On behalf of the opposition, today we mark the passing of John Owen Stone AO. He was someone who, without a doubt, it is recognised on both sides of politics, was a man of formidable intellect. He was an unflinching public servant and, without a doubt, one of the most remarkable Australians to ever enter the parliament. He was also a humble man. He was never a man to chase popularity. He is often said, though, to have chased principle. He pursued policy. He followed reason. In doing so, he helped shape the economic foundations of modern Australia.

Born in my home city of Perth in 1929, he was the eldest of two sons to a wheat farmer and a schoolteacher. John's early years were spent in the harsh, formative country of my home state's wheat belt. His parents divorced when he was 12. Alongside his mother and younger brother, he moved to Perth, where he won a scholarship to Perth Modern School. He later earned first class honours in mathematical physics at the University of Western Australia. He could have stopped there; that was a huge achievement within itself. Throughout his life, and certainly his life of public service, he became known as someone who was never content to stand still. In fact, in 1951 he won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford and switched from physics to economics, and again he graduated with first class honours.

It was a beginning of public life marked by clarity, conviction and, in no small measure—we've already heard about some of it—controversy. He joined Treasury in 1954, and over the next 30 years he rose through its ranks, serving overseas in London and Washington, shaping economic doctrine, defying Prime Ministers and eventually leading the department as secretary from 1979 to 1984. To say that John Stone transformed Treasury is no overstatement. In fact, his colleagues referred to it as 'the Stone Age', a term meant both critically and admiringly. He believed Treasury should be the gatekeeper of prudence, the check against what he called the barbarian hordes of unchecked spending and policy expediency.

Whether he was advising Whitlam, Hayden, Howard or Keating, the one thing you can say about John Stone is that he never hesitated to speak truth to power. John Howard, who worked with Stone as Treasurer, described him as a man never to be taken for granted, a superb intellect, a talented wordsmith and a relentless champion of sound of public policy. Even his written minutes, acerbic and precise, carried the sharp clarity of a mind intolerant of muddled thinking. He stood firmly for small government, low taxes and individual responsibility. He was a fierce critic of protectionism, centralised wage fixing and government overreach. He warned early of Australia's growing foreign debt, low productivity and economic drift. Not every prediction proved right, but few, as has been said, were ever ill considered. He was, in Paul Kelly's words, 'one of the two men who ran the nation' during the Fraser years.

In 1987—and this is actually quite remarkable, particularly for those in this place who understand the Public Service—he did something few public servants have ever done: he entered parliament. As a senator for Queensland and Leader of the National Party in this chamber, he quickly made his mark. In his first speech, he proclaimed, 'small is beautiful'—a credo he carried into his vigorous opposition to Labor's Australia Card legislation. It was John Stone who exposed the regulatory flaw that ultimately sank the scheme. He was not easily managed, but he was valued. Even after being dismissed from the frontbench, he was soon reinstated. That was the kind of colleague Stone was: challenging, yes, but, at the same time, indispensable.

Outside of parliament, Stone's influence never waned. He co-founded the HR Nicholls Society and the Samuel Griffith Society. He wrote prolifically. He spoke regularly. He championed federalism, individual liberty and a sceptical view of government power. He opposed multiculturalism, judicial activism and the republic. Now, whether you agreed with him or not, the one thing that you could say about him was: you never mistook where he actually stood.

But John Stone, with so many of us, was not just a public figure. He was a husband, a father, a thinker and a man of deep personal conviction. He was actually married to his beloved wife, Nancy, for nearly 70 years. They raised five children, including Andrew Stone, who followed, as we know, in his father's footsteps into public policy, serving as an adviser to prime ministers and opposition leaders alike.

Those who knew John Stone personally speak of his charm, his wit, but—more than anything—his deep love for our great country of Australia. He ran 32 kilometres to Lake George in response to a challenge. He represented his state in hockey. He was intensely competitive, unflinchingly honest, but never ever dull. In every role he played—scholar, bureaucrat, senator, commentator—he insisted on the highest standards, and he was someone who did not tolerate laziness.

John Stone stood for ideas. He stood for integrity. But, more than that, he stood for Australia. His legacy endures in our institutions, our economic framework and the generations of policymakers he influenced. For those of us in public life his career is a challenge, but it's also a reminder that conviction does matter and that a single mind, rigorously applied, can actually shape a nation.

On behalf of the opposition, I extend our sincere condolences to John Stone's family and to all who mourn John Stone's passing. May he rest in peace, but may his example also continue to inspire.

I rise on behalf of National Party senators and the National Party of Australia to extend our condolences upon the death of former senator John Owen Stone AO to his children, his grandchildren and all those who knew, loved and admired him.

John Stone was elected to the Senate from the National Party in Queensland in 1987. In fact, I think that was the first election that I handed out in, and I would have handed out for then senator Stone. He was immediately appointed to the position of shadow minister for finance and was Leader of the National Party in the Senate for the duration of his term until 1990.

John Stone had led a life of distinguished service long before entering parliament. Indeed, prominent obituaries, such as that in the Australian Financial Review on Saturday 19 July headlined 'Ex-Treasury secretary Stone dies', have extensively honoured his legacy as a public servant, an intellectual, a think-tank leader and an author, and have focused upon the exceptionally high esteem in which he was held. Former prime minister John Howard said that Australia had enjoyed the professionalism and advice of many talented public servants, but, in his experience, none surpassed John Stone, who served in Treasury for 12 years prior to his role as executive director for Australia, New Zealand and South Africa at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington, DC. He returned to the treasury department in 1971, where he was secretary from 1979 to 1984. He is renowned for tutoring former prime minister Paul Keating in economics when Keating unexpectedly became Treasurer, rather than Minister for Minerals and Energy, in the new Labor government in 1983. Stone did, however, oppose former treasurer Keating's decision to float the Australian dollar, as he fervently espoused economic conservatism, small government, lower taxes and less government spending. In his maiden speech to this chamber, he said:

… in matters of government I have come increasingly to the view that small is beautiful.

Over his Treasury career, John Stone worked with eight treasurers: Billy Snedden, Gough Whitlam, Frank Crean, Jim Cairns, Bill Hayden, Phillip Lynch, John Howard and Paul Keating, which gave former South Australian premier Don Dunstan the foundation—as you said, Senator Cash—to describe his influence as the Stone age. He became the only Commonwealth departmental secretary to become a member of the Australian parliament, and, well before becoming the head of Treasury, he was its principal policymaker and spokesman, exerting a major influence on several federal governments. He most often voted Liberal at federal elections but at least twice voted for the Labor Party, before joining the Queensland National Party in 1987.

Born in Perth in 1929, with his childhood spent in the Western Australian Wheatbelt, John Stone graduated with a Bachelor of Science from the University of Western Australia in 1950, with an extraordinary first-class honours in mathematical physics, before reading philosophy, politics and economics as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University. When returning to Australia from the United Kingdom, Stone joined the Commonwealth Treasury in 1954, the same year he married Nancy Hardwick, who was his beloved companion and intellectual equal for almost 70 years until her passing in 2023.

Following his short term in the Senate and ill-fated tilt as the National Party candidate for the House of Representatives seat of Fairfax in 1990—which, as an aside, I should tell you was treated as one of the great disasters of the century by the McDonald household—John Stone maintained a high profile as he transitioned to the role of conservative public commentator.

John and Nancy lived in Melbourne from 1990 until 2000 before finally settling in Sydney. He co-founded the Samuel Griffith Society, dedicated to promoting discussions on the Constitution, decentralisation and federalism. He continued to participate in the HR Nicholls Society, of which he was a founding father and whose tie he wore on the day of his maiden speech in this chamber. He became a senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and wrote frequently for the Australian, Quadrant, the National Observer, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian Financial Review and the Spectator Australia, and he delivered numerous lectures throughout Australia. He continued his role as an uncompromising right-wing commentator on public affairs and was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in the 2022 Queen's Birthday Honours for distinguished service to the people and parliament of Australia and to public administration.

We acknowledge the loss of a man who was revered, praised for his brilliance and challenged for his obstinacy but who was always recognised as one of the most influential Australians to serve in the Public Service and in public office. John Stone died on 17 July, aged 96, and is survived by his five children. On his stint in politics, he said: 'I wouldn't have missed it for the world. It was enormously interesting and it was fun.' May we all leave this place with a similar sentiment. Thank you for your service and vale to John Stone AO.

I rise to add my voice to those of colleagues in honouring the life and legacy of the late senator John Owen Stone. John Stone was one of the great conservative thinkers of his generation. He served our country at the highest level of public administration, brought deep economic insight to the Treasury and, in this chamber, made a contribution that will never be forgotten.

Although he was a senator for Queensland, John Stone was born in 1929 in Perth, in my home state of Western Australia, so I feel both a personal and a state pride in his life and achievements. He was educated at Perth Modern School and later at the University of Western Australia before winning a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford University, where he read philosophy, politics and economics and where he stood out for his formidable intellect and clarity of thought.

The parallels with John Stone's later political opponent Bob Hawke are uncanny. Both were born in 1929, both attended Perth Modern School and UWA, and both won a Rhodes Scholarship. Each was president of the undergraduate guild at UWA, with John Stone having defeated Bob Hawke for the presidency in 1951. It probably explains why there was never any love lost between the two in the many decades that followed.

Returning to Australia, he joined the Commonwealth Treasury in 1954 and, over the next three decades, became one of the most influential public servants of his time. His rise was swift but deserved, and in 1979 he was appointed secretary to the Treasury, serving under prime ministers Fraser and Hawke. It was not an easy time to carry out such a significant role. The Australian economy was experiencing significant upheaval, with inflation, stagflation and structural weaknesses that would later demand sweeping reform. Through it all, John Stone brought a disciplined, conservative perspective to economic management. He believed in sound money, restrained government and policies that promoted self-reliance, productivity and national resilience. He was never afraid to speak truth to power. Indeed, that was one of his hallmarks. As Treasury secretary, he saw his role as the custodian of economic integrity, and, while his forthrightness at times unsettled ministers, no-one ever doubted the quality of his judgement. But it did lead him to openly clash with several of the treasurers he would serve, including a young John Howard.

He was the driving force behind the Fraser government's 'fight inflation first' strategy, and his conservative economics, coupled with his influence on the government, led South Australian premier Don Dunstan to describe the period as the 'new Stone Age'. So great an asset was John Stone that, following Labor's 1983 election win, he was kept on at the Treasury by Paul Keating, despite the reservations of Bob Hawke and the rest of his cabinet. Nevertheless, John Stone resigned in August 1984.

Shortly after, John Stone delivered the Edward Shann Memorial Lecture in economics at UWA titled '1929 and all that'. This lecture drew parallels between the state of the Australian economy in the 1980s and the state of the Australian economy on the eve of the Great Depression, pointing to three key problems: financial mismanagement, protectionism and ossified labour markets. Along with Gerard Henderson's essay 'The industrial relations club', John Stone's speech provided the intellectual foundations for the formation of the HR Nicholls Society in 1986, where he initially served as president and remained involved for decades. I shouldn't say this, but on this occasion I will. Many years ago, I was gifted a tie of the HR Nicholls Society—a gift that I took great pride in—and it sits in my Senate suite to this day. But I know that we can keep a secret!

In 1987, John Stone made the rare transition from mandarin to parliamentarian, elected as a National Party senator for Queensland. One could ask how a Western-Australian-born classical liberal economist living in Sydney arrived in this chamber as a Queensland National Party senator. He was offered the spot on the party's Queensland Senate ticket after developing the Joh for Canberra campaign's single-rate tax policy. When delivering his maiden speech, he wore his HR Nicholls Society tie—I'm not—though he reassured other senators:

… when I put on this tie this morning I had no intention of being provocative.

Whilst many, including John Howard, blamed the Joh for Canberra campaign for the coalition's 1987 election loss, John Stone was appointed shadow minister for finance. Though his time in this chamber was brief, it was impactful. John Stone brought with him an unparalleled grasp of economic and constitutional matters, and he used that expertise to sharpen our debates and challenge assumptions. It is no surprise that a politician with John Stone's keen economic insight and vision held ambitions to be the Treasurer, and in 1990 he resigned from the Senate to unsuccessfully contest a seat in the House of Representatives.

John Stone, though, remained a prolific writer, speaker and contributor to conservative publications, particularly Quadrant. He was particularly concerned with the creeping centralisation of power in Canberra and was a staunch defender of states' rights, something he attributed in part to his Western Australian upbringing. This led John Stone to his next political project, which was inspired by what he perceived as a growing disregard by the Hawke government for the federal principles of the Australian Constitution in the Tasmanian dams matter, including attempts to amend the Constitution with four simultaneous referenda in 1988.

In 1992, he co-founded the Samuel Griffith Society, of which I'm a proud member. The society is dedicated to defending the Constitution against all who would attempt to undermine it, particularly in support of decentralisation, federalism and the restoration of the authority of parliament. With the support of his wife, Nancy, John Stone led the organisation until his retirement in 2009. How fitting it is then that he will be especially remembered this month when the national conference of the Samuel Griffith Society is held in Perth.

His views were never for the fainthearted. He was a man of strong convictions and a robust defender of traditional liberal conservative values. He spoke with clarity, sometimes sharply, reflecting a frustration with what he saw as drift or compromise. John Stone himself would not have shied away from the fact that some of his contributions were controversial. He believed public life demanded honesty, even perhaps especially when it was uncomfortable. In an era increasingly wary of strong views and unfashionable opinions, John Stone reminded us that a healthy democracy requires diversity of thought, intellectual courage and the space to disagree. Despite this, those who knew him personally remember a man of courtesy, loyalty and great personal discipline. He was, of course, deeply devoted to his wife, Nancy, and to their entire family.

As a Western Australian, I'm proud that our state produced such a formidable national servant. As a Liberal senator, I pay tribute to a man who embodied so many of our enduring values. It was a privilege on a number of occasions to have met and spoken with both John and Nancy, most frequently, but not exclusively, at meetings of the Samuel Griffith Society.

As economic debates again circle around inflation, spending and debt, we would do well to revisit the insights of John Stone. His warnings about fiscal excess, short-termism and bureaucratic bloat remain as relevant today as when he first raised them. John Stone's legacy will live in our laws, our debates and in the integrity he brought to every role. Like others, I extend my condolences to his family and to all that knew him.

I also rise to pay tribute to a legendary figure—I use the word 'legendary', as did Paul Kelly—in Australian public life: John Owen Stone AO. On behalf of the New South Wales Nationals, I offer our sincere condolences to his family and our profound respect for a life spent in public service to the Australian nation.

He was a man of remarkable intellect. We've heard here today of so many things that he had done, his unwavering conviction and fearless independence. Over a career that spanned public service, politics, journalism and civic commentary, he shaped many of the great debates this nation has had.

We've heard he was born in Western Australia. We've heard about the trail. He went right across Australia, living in so many of our cities and so many of our towns. He gave me a great sense of federalism. He gave me a great sense of what this nation was. There was also that time he spent over in Oxford being a Rhodes scholar—and serving eight treasurers, Liberal and Labor, without fear. That was what led Paul Kelly, once again, to call him 'a mastery of economic reasoning and a gift for the principled dissent'. Stone himself once said that the first duty of a public servant is to the public—not to ministers, not to ideology and certainly not to fashion. He was fiercely independent; that line captures him well. He never allowed his role to become politicised. He stood firm against the inflationary policy and reckless spending—at times, even by his own ministers—when he believed that the national interest was at stake.

When he entered this very chamber in 1987—no, it was the other chamber down the road; he didn't come up here—he spoke plainly and with purpose. He believed in strong borders, a sovereign parliament and a cohesive national identity. He once told this chamber that a parliament that shrinks from its responsibilities, whether through political cowardice or cultural confusion, is a parliament unworthy of the Australian people. Think of where we are today—the arguments we are having and the things that are being said—and apply that. Some of his views were controversial, but none doubted the sincerity in which he held them. In a time when political figures often followed the lead, John Stone was resolutely his own man. He believed, above all, that Australia must remain the master of its own destiny.

In the 1990s and beyond, his essays in the Quadrant, the Australian and other publications show a deep concern for Australia's economic direction and cultural confidence. In one of his most cited pieces, he wrote, 'We have become a nation adept at the language of surrender—surrender of culture, of sovereignty and of pride in our civilisation, and that must end or the nation we know will cease to exist.' Once again, these are words that we must think of. But that was the spirit of John Stone—a man who saw warning signs and spoke them loud and clear while others stayed silent. He was deeply committed to the principle of federalism and worried about the overreach of Commonwealth power into the lives of citizens and the responsibilities of states. His words on this subject were also strong: 'The drift towards centralisation is not inevitable; it is merely being left unchecked.' To the very end, he wrote with sharpness and clarity, urging Australians to think more deeply about what binds us together as people. He was always for unity.

John Stone was not only a public servant or senator but also a national sentinel. He guarded our institutions, our finances and our civic cohesion with fierce determination. His legacy is one of courage, intellect and an unshakeable belief in the Australian nation. To his wife, Nancy, and their children: we extend our deepest sympathies. Australia has lost a statesman, but his words and the example of his service will remain with us. May he rest in peace.

I, too, would like to provide my condolences to former senator John Stone's family and recognise the incredible service he gave to our nation both in this place and in other roles. Normally, in these condolence motions, we would look to the example of a former senator in their political life and seek to remind ourselves of how we could do better as parliamentarians, following reflection of their service. However, when I look back at Senator John Stone's career there are, perhaps, more lessons to the broader Public Service and those that support us in this role.

I do want to say that we have incredible public servants in this country, but it's hard to read John's biography and his contributions without feeling a little bit of regret that they don't really make them like John Stone anymore. It seems to me that we could have people like John—and I'm not trying to blame individuals here—but, for whatever reason, the advice we receive now and the commentary that occurs in our broader public debate always seems to be a little filtered and diluted. You couldn't call John Stone someone who diluted his opinions and contributions, and the nation, the parliament and our country are better for it. I will come to John's career as a politician, but I hope that those in the wider Public Service also take the opportunity of his passing to reflect on his career. They may not agree with everything John said and did, but I think his example is one that should be looked to more and taken as a template.

Another thing that struck me when I read through John's incredible biography is that just reading his biography gives you a very good grounding in postwar economic policy in this country. He was involved in almost every major economic debate and decision that occurred in the postwar period. It was an incredibly important and crucial period for Australia has development. I hope it doesn't get forgotten in our history, because things have moved on somewhat from that period, but there are a lot of lessons in it. I'll just mention a few things.

John was integral, perhaps, in pushing back on some of the recommendations in the Vernon report in the mid-1960s. That's something that is perhaps a bit lost to our history. I do have copies in my office if anyone would like to read them. It's very big; they don't really write reports like that anymore. Those reports effectively called for more planning and government control of the Australian economy. John, along with some others in the Treasury department, pushed back against some of what would have been the worst abuses.

John was also integral in opposing the then panic that occurred around the Club of Rome in the early 1970s. He argued strongly within Treasury—successfully, I believe—that we did not need to panic because prices would change, and that would encourage additional resource development and technology developments, and we wouldn't run out of food or other resources as the then Club of Rome were warning. He was proven absolutely right about that, and he continues to be proven right about that against the current crop of neo-Malthusians.

He was also integral throughout the seventies and early eighties in developing a 'fight inflation first' approach to a terrible problem that was afflicting Australia at the time, the stagflation of the 1970s. There was, I suppose, since the days of the Great Depression, a preference to rest back on the Keynesian policies of the Phillips curve and extra stimulus. But John was part of a broader movement across the world to say no, those economic models had broken down and there was a need for strict restraint on government spending, a tighter monetary policy than some perhaps wanted, to finally get rid of the scourge of inflation. Again, there are probably some lessons for us today.

In saying all of that, when I read a bit of John's biography and in respect of the contributions today, there's perhaps a tendency to think that John was quite strident, ideological and even dogmatic in his so-called right-wing positions, but his career also showed a practical approach to policy. It wasn't all one-sided. Despite being generally supportive of free trade, he opposed Gough Whitlam's 25 per cent overnight tariff cut—and for good reason, I think. He also opposed the floating of the dollar. As he explained later, he opposed the urgent and sudden adoption of that policy, rather than, necessarily, the direction itself. His considered but strident opinions were ones that definitely helped to shape policy in this country and are very instructive, I think, for those involved in public policy today.

As has been described, he decided to become a National Party senator despite having never voted for the National Party. As Senator Smith mentioned, I don't think he'd even lived there before. Perhaps he'd visited Queensland before he became a senator. He probably had. He was welcomed with open arms to the National Party. He contributed significantly to the development of a flat tax policy that I'm going to go back and read, now that I've read that.

It's time!

It's time, Senator Smith! I'm not sure yet, but it should stay in people's minds at least. Very early on in his parliamentary career, he stood for Deputy Leader of the National Party, and he almost won. He was very highly regarded. In a very short career in this place, he became the Leader of the National Party in the Senate and then decided to run for a lower house seat.

He apparently had been very scornful of politicians throughout his Public Service career, but that didn't stop him becoming one. Perhaps, by running for the lower house, he started to push up against the limitations of frank and fearless advice and hit into the tough grassroots politics that goes with potentially being a lower house member. I know a former colleague of ours, Ron Boswell, was very good friends with John Stone. In his recent autobiography, Ron recalls campaigning with John for the seat of Fairfax in the Sunshine Coast. In Ron's view, it was just tough for a strident free-market economist who believed in a lot of free trade to get the support of the pineapple and ginger growers of the Sunshine Coast. So ideological purity has its benefits, but it doesn't always translate to votes, as John realised. He was beaten, ultimately, by Mr Alex Somlyay, who had a long career in the other place. There are lots of stories about that campaign. But none of that reduced the contribution John made to this country. Indeed, Gerard Henderson once wrote that there could be questions about John's political judgement but there could never be a question about John's courage in putting himself forward for these positions and seeking to do what he thought was best for the nation.

It was a long time ago that he ran for the seat of Fairfax, but he continued to contribute to our nation. I will miss his contributions in the Spectator magazine. They were quite fun. I was reading a few of them before this, and I've ultimately decided that I probably won't quote them in the chamber. It's probably too soon! Maybe in another 10 years we can recount his reflections. They were always very acerbic. He was always worth reading.

I'll finish here. Again, to the people that want to put opinions forward to us as decision-makers: I just want to know what you think. I just want to know where you stand. I think it's best, and John's career shows this—we don't actually need the public servants to be politicians. We don't need them to double-guess what's going to work or what's going to get the most votes. I find that's happened a bit too much lately. They perhaps read a little bit too much psephology and not enough public policy. We need the Public Service to provide advice on what's best for Australia, obviously, and then we need to navigate, through a democratic environment, how that gets popular support. But we need the frank and fearless advice, now more than ever, that John Stone provided.

All my condolences go to his family. His son Andrew Stone, who himself has been a major contributor to public policy in this country, is here with us this evening. Thank you for being here, Andrew. Please, on behalf of all of us, pass our condolences on to your family. Vale, Senator John Stone.

Just briefly: I didn't have the pleasure of meeting John Stone. I would have loved to. I suspect we would have agreed on a great many things. However, I did have the pleasure, in a previous role, of working with Andrew. So, Andrew, please pass on the condolences of the Senate to your entire family.

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

There being no objection, the business is postponed.

I, and also on behalf of Senator McDonald, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in 2025:

The current health and future of the Australian metals manufacturing industry including the alumina, aluminium, lead, zinc, copper and nickel industries, with reference to:

(a) the impact of increasing energy costs, technological change, industrial relation regimes, workforce challenges and the broader regulatory environment;

(b) distortions in global supply chains that impact the viability of Australian metals manufacturing;

(c) the cost of metals manufacturing businesses meeting climate change targets;

(d) the viability of government interventions to sustain Australian metals manufacturing;

(e) the potential for energy investments to help reduce costs for Australian metals manufacturing;

(f) the viability of further public-private partnerships;

(g) the impact on regions, our national security and economy if metals manufacturing declines in Australia; and

(h) any other related matter.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 in the names of Senators Canavan and McDonald be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend business of Senate notice of motion No. 4, relating to a reference to the Community References Committee.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2025:

The implications for older Australians, their families, carers, service providers and state and territory health systems of the Government's decision to delay the commencement of the new Support at Home program until 1 November 2025 while also withholding the release of any additional Home Care Packages, with particular reference to:

(a) the impact of the delay on older Australians waiting for support at home, including unmet care needs and the wellbeing of seniors and their carers;

(b) the capacity of the Commonwealth Home Support Programme to meet increased demand for support at home prior to 1 November 2025;

(c) the impacts on aged care service providers, including on their workforce;

(d) the impacts on hospitals and state and territory health systems;

(e) the feasibility of achieving the Government's target to reduce waiting times for Home Care Packages to 3 months by 1 July 2027, in light of the delay;

(f) the adequacy of the governance, assurance and accountability frameworks supporting the digital transformation projects required to deliver the aged care reforms on time;

(g) the implementation of the single assessment system and its readiness to support people to access a timely assessment now and beyond 1 November 2025; and

(h) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, by no later than Friday 1 August 2025, all correspondence, meeting and briefing notes, and documents prepared or generated in relation to or as a result of the Department of the Treasury's consultation on unfair trading practices and the preparation of a legislation and a regulatory impact statement, including:

(a) bilateral meetings, roundtables and other communications with stakeholders; and

(b) meetings and other communications with state and territory consumer affairs ministers.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 11 August 2025:

(a) any documents, including diary and/or calendar entries, showing the number of meetings held since 1 January 2023 between representatives of industry groups Berries Australia and CropLife Australia and any relevant ministers, ministerial staff and/or staff at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and/or staff at the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA); and

(b) any ministerial and/or departmental briefing notes, memoranda and/or other associated documents created since 1 January 2023 regarding APVMA chemical reviews and Berries Australia and/or CropLife Australia.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

(2) That the Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 1 August 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme and/or his office, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) in relation to the investigation initiated by the NDIA in relation to the improper receipt of gifts by NDIA staff, as detailed in the document 'Executive Minute: National Disability Insurance Agency—Report 504—Recommendations 1-3', dated 24 December 2024.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 1 August 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Communications and/or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in relation to the development of legislative instruments made under Part 4A of the Online SafetyAct 2021, inserted by the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(1) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister:

(a) by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 1 August 2025, all written determinations made under subsections 4(1) and 12(2) of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 since 23 May 2022; and

(b) by no later than the tenth day after the end of the preceding three month period commencing 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, and 1 October any written determinations made under subsections 4(1) and 12(2) of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 after the day this order is agreed to.

(2) This order is of continuing effect.

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The coalition believes that the longstanding convention relating to the provision of staff to non-government MPs and senators is an important one which Prime Minister Albanese has disrespected. Noting this breach of convention, it is important to obtain as much transparency as possible on this matter. Therefore, the coalition will support Senator Payman's motion.

by leave—The government will oppose the motion. The allocation of personal staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act is reported and publicly accessible in the normal way through established processes, including during estimates. At no point would the government agree to release the personal or specific details of parliamentarians, staff or party groups.

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

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 1 August 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and/or her office and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in relation to the failure of the mutual obligations system to operate in alignment with the law, as referred to in the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations' statement of 21 March 2025.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 1 August 2025, the final written report of the Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Select Committee on PFAS (per and polyfluoroalkyl substances), appointed by resolution of the Senate on 22 August 2024, be reappointed with the same powers and provisions for membership, except as otherwise provided by this resolution;

(b) the committee and any subcommittee have power to consider and use the evidence and records of the select committee appointed on 22 August 2024; and

(c) the committee present its final report on or before 19 November 2025.

Question agreed to.

Senator Hanson has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today as shown at item 14 of today's order of business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Government to scrap its net-zero emissions target and instead prioritise providing Australian families, farmers, businesses and industry with cheap and reliable energy, to protect jobs, ensure energy security, lower the cost of living and restore Australia's economic competitiveness.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Government to scrap its net-zero emissions target and instead prioritise providing Australian families, farmers, businesses and industry with cheap and reliable energy, to protect jobs, ensure energy security, lower the cost of living and restore Australia's economic competitiveness.

Net zero—we have schoolchildren in the gallery, and I think that this is great debate for them to hear, moving forward. What we've found is that net zero has not been explained or debated, and we have no indication of what has been taught to children in school. A lot of the schoolchildren these days are crying and upset because they feel the world is coming to an end. I tell you something: it's not. It's not coming to an end. The world's not coming to an end over climate change. It's being pushed by those who are going to make a lot of money out of it.

The climate has always changed. Go back over the centuries. If you look at the sun now, they predict it is six degrees hotter than it was three million years ago. Do you think that's because of carbon emissions? They say 'global emissions'; our emissions now, in Australia, are only one per cent of global emissions. China, India and the United States are putting out 50 per cent of global emissions—but guess what? China doesn't have to sign up to anything reining in their global emissions until 2060. For India, it's 2070. America is not even signed up to it. So why are we destroying our economy, our way of life and our standard of living?

This has become a political football for people to use to gain votes. There's scaremongering that goes on with the younger generation. We cannot even refer to temperatures before 1910—'Oh, we can't discuss that!' Australia is the land of floods and drought. It's in our history books. If you go back years, we used to have an inland ocean in Australia. Did we have industrialisation? Did we see petroleum products used back then? No, we didn't.

Look at the ice age that the world had. The Thames froze over in the 1400s. That wasn't due to human emissions. Human emissions are only responsible for three per cent of carbon emissions; 97 per cent comes from natural sources, like soil or volcanos or oceans, which emit and absorb carbon dioxide. But we're going to blame the humans for this so that we can therefore move forward and impose restrictions on people.

What's going to happen in the future? I'll tell you. This was all set up under Agenda 21. It started with Maurice Strong in the 1970s. It's basically about Agenda 21 controlling the plebs; that's what it is. We're going to have class distinction here. We're going to have a lower class of people, and we're going to have those—the rich—who can pay for it. I'll tell you the future: people will actually be controlled on what they eat, where they move, what cars they drive and how far they go. You won't have the freedom to travel, because it's all about climate change—'You're going to destroy the earth, and we can't allow that to happen!'

Carbon emissions were lower after industrialisation happened. Scientists debate the issue of whether carbon follows temperature or temperature follows carbon. That's a lot to debate. Does anyone talk about volcano eruptions? What about all of those emissions? There are supposedly geologists and scientists that have said there are about a million active volcanos in our oceans around the world. Has anyone stated the damage they may be doing?

You can't turn it around by taxing people to the hilt, which is driving up the cost of living and putting people in a position where they cannot afford their bills, their houses, their rent, or anything. This is all driven up because of the high cost of electricity. Don't think that, just because you put in wind turbines and solar panels, that's the answer to it. It's not the answer. You're charging people the cost of $50 billion plus through all these renewable scams that you've got and the scaremongering that goes into it. It's not producing reliable, affordable energy. We've lost our industries—our manufacturing—and there's a high cost of living to everyone, and the lights are still going to go out! You're heading down a path; you're destroying this economy. You're destroying our way of life in Australia. It's a scam that you're pushing onto the Australian people. It's a real shame on Labor that you are continuing down this path. You never allow real debate in this parliament, or put up the real scientists. Let's take it to the public. Let's have a debate in public so that the people can be a part of it. You're affecting their lives, so I think they should be a part of it.

I rise to support this motion, because net zero is not working. It's very simple. When Australia signed up to net zero emissions just over three years ago, the people that were pushing net zero emissions said that it would deliver cheaper power. They said that it would create heaps of new jobs. They said that we'd be joining the rest of the world, who were, apparently, going to act on these things. On all of those fronts, those that pushed net zero have been wrong—not just by a little bit, but totally and utterly wrong.

On power prices since we signed up to net zero: we were promised cheaper power. Is anyone paying less for their power? I don't think so. Electricity prices have actually gone up 31 per cent in the last three years, and gas prices have gone up 40 per cent. Now the government doesn't even promise lower power prices. They've given it up. They've just waved the white flag.

On more jobs, we were promised all of these jobs in hydrogen and critical minerals. Well, we've lost our nickel industry. We've totally lost it. Ten thousand jobs have been lost in critical minerals in Western Australia since we started with net zero. We lost it because Indonesia has no shyness from building coal-fired power stations, and we were trying to make green nickel. We lost it. Now we're on the cusp of losing copper and aluminium jobs. The government is having to bail out billions of dollars for them as well.

Other countries aren't acting either. We were told other countries were acting. The United States has pulled out. China, India, Indonesia and Mongolia have increased their annual coalmining by 1.2 billion tonnes a year since the so-called signing up to net zero. It is just not working, so it's time to recognise that. When something is not working, you stop it and you do something else. That's why we need to stop net zero.

While I do support this motion, I do want to note that One Nation is playing catch-up here. My colleague and good friend Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, has, in the other place, moved a law to repeal net zero. While I accuse One Nation of playing catch-up, I too must say that when Barnaby told me a few weeks ago he was going to do this, the first thing I thought was, 'Why didn't I think of that?' I've got to give him credit for doing this. He's put it on the agenda. He's dominating the media and discussions. It's about time we have a debate on this. I'm happy to have this debate too, but we are here to make laws, not just statements. We've got to repeal this rubbish so that finally we act in the interests of Australians again.

It's not surprising to see this motion moved by One Nation, but the real suspense it provokes is in relation to what the Liberal Party and the National Party are going to do. Less than a week ago, Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack were on the front page of the Australian in a unity ticket to ditch net zero. The question is whether the Liberal Party of Australia is going to learn the lessons of the election but also learn the lessons of what's happening in our climate and our economy and actually take a step back to the reasonable part of Australian politics, or lurch right once again and double down on the policies of the Dutton opposition and their head-in-the-sand approach to climate change.

A net zero emissions target is not something to be feared; it's an opportunity for Australia to capitalise on a changing global economy while addressing an important issue that requires addressing, not just from an economic perspective but for our survival on the planet. To ignore the need to tackle climate change and to reach net zero emissions is to put our people, our farmers, our businesses, our livelihoods and our industries at risk. It's no secret that this transition is going to be challenging, but doing nothing will be much more costly. Deloitte estimates that over 50 years unchecked climate change would, in average annual terms, reduce Australia's economic growth by three per cent per year. That's why the government's committed to tackling this problem in a certain way and in a responsible way.

Dr Ken Henry, the former secretary of the Treasury, addressed the National Press Club last week, and he said:

The biggest threat to future productivity growth comes from nature itself; more particularly, from its destruction.

It is now well accepted that a degraded natural world poses myriad threats to food systems, provision of clean air and, water and the continuing supply of other ecosystem services critical to production. While those opposite are always happy to use the word 'productivity', they rarely go beyond it and look at the benefits that this transition will have for our productivity and our economy. Longer droughts, bigger floods and more intense bushfires threaten the future of our agricultural sector, a reduction in productivity. In Australia, researchers predict that wheat yield loss may be as high as 27 per cent in parts of northern Victoria in the next 40 years, impacting on food security and food affordability—things that are very important to the people of this side of the house. It is a failure to address climate change and to reach net zero that will hurt our country and its people.

Let's go back to 2020 and a document that was prepared by then minister Angus Taylor, the Technology Investment Roadmap. At that stage, perhaps a more sensible Liberal Party—certainly not as extreme as it is today—told us in that roadmap that low-emissions technologies could position Australia for over $30 billion a year in new export revenue from energy-intensive, low-emissions products by 2040. That's why, in its 2021 report on this, the Business Council of Australia announced its support for reaching net zero. That council, that radical organisation, said:

The pace and scale of change is accelerating globally. Australia is at a crossroads: we can either embrace decarbonisation and seize a competitive advantage in developing new technologies and export industries; or be left behind and pay the price.

…     …     …

The transition … must run in tandem with the nation realising greater economy-wide productivity gains, lifting international competitiveness and improving the ability to attract investment in order to accelerate economic growth and secure Australia's long-term prosperity.

That's the Business Council of Australia, and it speaks to the political extremism and the wander to the right of those opposite that they don't get onboard with these changes.

What has the government done, though? We've seen record levels of renewable energy generation, reaching 46 per cent on the national market at the end of 2024, and we've seen a significant increase in generational capacity. It's not a simple task, but doing this transition positions Australia to be part of a global economic change, it allows us to generate revenue for export industries, and, most importantly, it allows us to play our role in tackling a significant global challenge which is affecting not only our economy but also our ecosystems and our liveability on the planet itself.

So, while the motion from One Nation is not surprising, what is surprising is the speed and the cynical nature with which it has been approached or adopted by those opposite. What remains to be seen is whether the Liberal Party can find some sense and find its way back or whether it remains on the right fringe and denies the existence of this problem.

Debate interrupted.

Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Ananda-Rajah to make her first speech and I ask senators to extend the usual courtesies to her.

I'd like to acknowledge the First Peoples of Victoria and their enduring connection to science, to nature and to learning. Colleagues, imagine it is 2065, 40 years from now. My time as a parliamentarian is long gone and my world is confined to my home, my family and my memories. This is my vision of the future.

I am 92 years old. As I tend to my veggies, my gaze lifts to the smoke on the horizon. When once I felt fear, I know that that fire will be extinguished by fire-retardant drones, lifting off from stations all around the bush, triggered by satellites. Despite Australia hitting net zero well before 2050, our fire seasons remain intense due to the baked-in impacts of climate change. Earth's fever has not broken, but, on our current trajectory, it will, as vast machines made by gods suck carbon from the air and kelp forests teeming with life trap carbon in our oceans. The tech oligarchs of my working life have been replaced by blue-carbon billionaires.

Some 40 years earlier, a Labor government I served in laid the foundations for our renewable energy transformation. Australia has now become an energy darling feted by global businesses that make products like green steel, which have reduced the world's emissions by eight to 10 per cent as predicted by eminent economist Ross Garnaut decades earlier. We now feed the world's appetite for guilt-free energy, especially in Asia, while creating that holy grail—a high-wage economy delivering sustained prosperity, immune from the boom and bust of mining.

Regional communities like mine have benefited most, with streets abuzz with young families—a good indicator of a thriving community. I am reminded to get dinner on, because my granddaughter will be home soon. She works in our booming biotech sector, making nanoparticles that deliver chemotherapy directly to cancer cells, leaving healthy tissue intact. The scorched-earth side effects of chemo I witnessed as a doctor have been relegated to the history books. Working in the city, she will be home soon, thanks to high-speed trains that practically fly in tunnels at speeds rivalling a jet. I never liked the Melbourne-to-Canberra flight. Now, I never need to take it.

I turn to squeals of delight from my great-grandson, who has spotted a wombat under the deck. I lift him up. The pain of knee osteoarthritis that marred my 60s has eased, thanks to weight loss drugs made affordable decades earlier. These drugs have crushed diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, cancer and sleep apnoea. When I was a doctor, hepatitis C had no cures until antivirals came along. The same has happened with obesity, by far the toughest nut to crack. By blocking the reward centres in the brain, these drugs have also curbed drug and alcohol addiction, saving billions in knock-on social and economic effects.

As evening falls, my tradie granddaughter bounds down the stairs. She found me last week after my AI assistant alerted her to my fall. My patients used to spend upwards of 14 hours on the floor after falls; now, no more. A quick hug, and she heads off to fit out a 3D printed home built in three days. She won't be alone, joined by farmers, construction workers and council workers, who work under floodlights. Heat stress has reset the working patterns of thousands of Australians who, like I once did as a doctor, now work the night shift. An alert from our prime minister pops up. A new respiratory virus has been detected with pandemic potential. 'Rest assured,' she says. A universal vaccine is available to buy us time before a more specific vaccine is approved. Made domestically, the delays will be minimal. With the ranks of our elderly and immunocompromised growing, clean indoor air powered by abundant energy is another layer of protection around vulnerable Australians who do not respond to vaccination. Dinner is a communal affair, with four generations around the table. After a meal of lab grown meat, my great-grandson and I snuggle up together with his favourite book, Diary of a wombat. Some things never change.

Every single concept in this vignette is grounded in science rather than fiction. It is a future where advances in science and tech lift up our living standards, making us more resilient, prosperous and able to withstand whatever the world throws at us. It means delivering investment and policy anchors that give our innovators and startups certainty for the patient, difficult work of R&D. When Pulitzer Prize winning writer Siddhartha Mukherjee said that 'technology dissolves its own past', he meant a leap from analogue to smartphone, from prayer to life-saving drugs, from coal fired power to cities powered by cars and home batteries. As a doctor, scientist and now senator, I'd like to see Aussie fingerprints all over that future tech.

Labor understands that critical mineral processing, agriculture and clean energy are areas where we have a competitive edge. But there is another which is a sleeping giant. Biotech, like clean energy, is an area where we are primed for success. In research excellence, Australia is ranked eighth globally. Our health system, underpinned by that great Labor legacy Medicare, tops the world rankings. And we are one of 10 countries with science and tech clusters in our major cities. Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are places where high flyers cluster with high flyers, sparking ideas that turn into dollars. But here's the paradox: despite punching above our weight, with good health care, research excellence and great talent, we have not turned ideas into companies. With 1,200 biotech companies and a handful of giants, like Cochlear and CSL, we have the mystery of the missing middle. At a time when Australia urgently needs new revenue streams to pay for the things that matter, we must crack the code in biotech that bridges the middle between minnow and whale. Almost overnight, we could become a knowledge economy, turning Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane into Oxford, Cambridge and Boston, in arguably a shorter time than it takes making batteries.

Consider the clinical trials industry, which pressure tests our drugs before Australians get them. At $450 billion, approaching $700 billion in seven years, I'd like a bigger slice of that pie. And here's the thing. Our multiculturalism puts us in the box seat. This is one of the reasons why a tax on diversity is so misguided, because it blinds us to its economic value. If a drug works in a culturally diverse population, it is likely to work for millions, if not billions, of people. Australia could—should—be a clinical trials destination of the world. A thriving biotech sector means jobs for knowledge workers who, like me, struggled in academia for too long.

Knowledge workers are far more diverse than we think. They are scientists, nurses who run clinical trials, doctors, engineers who design artificial hearts, bioinformaticians who crunch genetic data, geneticists, AI scientists, software engineers, statisticians, roboticists and health economists. These workers cluster in cities but, importantly, aspirants to these jobs are everywhere—all over this country. They are championed by great institutions like the Australian Academy of Science, who are here today.

But even the nobility of science has a dark underbelly. Scientists have all the job security of gig workers. Bullying is underreported and rent seekers demand authorship for little to no work. The 'publish or perish' mentality has driven perverse outcomes, privileging piles of papers over innovating those ideas into marketable products and services. Our young scientists, who are the engines of innovation and patents, have no chance when judged by seniors, who have usually never started companies themselves. If the system feels stacked against our young scientists, it's because it is. And we, as the funder of around $6 billion to $7 billion on behalf of all Australians, are obligated to fix this.

These systemic problems are part of the reason I would like us to bridge the gap to mid-sized companies in biotech. The 8½ thousand PhDs we make every year need jobs outside academia. And I am not alone. A 2024 report by Research Australia revealed that only one in six postdocs would recommend an academic career. India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, said:

The future belongs to science and those who make friends with science.

I say yes, but it's our young scientists we really need to be friends with.

As a doctor, I observe the sins of society wash up in two places: the justice system and public hospitals. For 26 years as a generalist, I saw patients at the bottom of the pile. I watched the tsunami of chronic disease, severe mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction and homelessness. Every week I made a cancer diagnosis and alleviated the last moments of a person's life. Some 30 to 55 per cent of health outcomes are due to drivers beyond health. These social determinants, like housing, access to health care, education, employment and discrimination, are core business for Labor governments.

Wearing my other hat in infectious diseases meant fighting small-print infections that nobody has ever heard of in patients with profoundly weak immune systems. I saw patients with blood cancers, autoimmune conditions and transplantation—heart, lung, kidney, bone marrow. The Alfred hospital in Melbourne did cutting-edge medicine and I loved it. Seeing the carnage of infections in leukaemia patients prompted my PhD, spanning health economics, better antibiotic management and artificial intelligence. It was more challenge that meant less time with my then small kids, burning the candle at both ends. It sharpened me up and fostered a love for science which has stood as a protective factor against the shadow that stalks all doctors—burnout.

But research was not easy. As a Research Australia finalist and founder of an AI startup, I encountered too many barriers to commercialisation. It turns out I'm not alone. In 2024 Australian startups founded by women attracted a pitiful two per cent of investment capital. Determined to get funding, I even went to the UK. I thought it was because of my gender, my colour or not enough titles. It was probably a combination of all three.

Enabling women, including those with funny names, to sit rather than serve at the founder table means confronting the uncomfortable truth of unconscious bias. It is structural as the steel beams that hold up this place, but it weakens the whole. It starves the enterprise, including our workplaces, schools, sporting teams and creative arts—indeed, this parliament—of talent, and that is an act of self-harm.

However, it wasn't my patients that led me into politics but rather the people who care for them. During the pandemic, healthcare workers who held up the sky were treated as if we were disposable, gaslit and silenced. I spoke up even against my own profession when I saw the science changing around how the virus was spread. Wiping down surfaces would have been fine had we been facing a pandemic of gastro, but that wasn't the case. I had junior and senior doctors coming to me with their fears and heard nurses weeping behind closed doors, and I went to work. I fought for our safety at work with a coalition of healthcare workers I pulled together. It was the most testing period of my life, hands down—juggling on-calls, kids, late nights, media publishing and giving lectures. Without knowing it, I had become a campaigner.

Taking on the Morrison government as a private citizen over work safety and vaccine rollout was wrath-of-God stuff. The day before my first appearance on Q+A in 2021, I was asked to go easy on the government by a colleague who had been pressured by a then government minister. It left me shaking and nauseated. It was my husband, a man of steel, who told me to say what I thought. I've never disclosed this; it was too raw back in 2022. I even quit my other job as a director of a medtech institute, fearing repercussions on the universities. Today I'd like to thank that politician, because those standover tactics, along with the policy drift of the then government, drove me into the arms of the Labor Party, and the rest, as they say, is history.

As the first Labor member for Higgins in the seat's 75-year history, I respected its gravitas as a seat of leaders, including four former Liberal prime ministers—Holt and Gorton, along with Menzies and Fraser, who lived there—and, of course, Australia's longest-serving Treasurer. I showed up and advocated as best I could during an inflationary crisis, a cost-of-living squeeze and a highly volatile period for my large Jewish community. I brought the same care and intensity I had for my patients to my constituents. But this community gave me so much more: people with skills, expertise and a moral ambition for this nation down every street I doorknocked.

The abolition of Higgins in 2024, then, was as cold as a surgeon's knife. It was devastating. I grieved for what I had left behind in medicine and for what I had wanted to achieve. However, not one to ruminate, I crisscrossed Victoria as a member of the health committee, determined to stay present. At 6½ million and counting, Victoria needs infrastructure and services. The regions need doctors like oxygen. The long-acting contraception we funded will stop women in border communities near South Australia from travelling long distances to Warrnambool for surgical abortions. Quality aged care in Leongatha and Ararat makes hospital a place of last resort for confused elderly. Violet Town's aged-care workforce is overwhelmingly of South Asian ancestry like me, underscoring the vital importance of the role migrants play, especially in the regions. Stoic farmers submit to health checks in the saleyards run by Yea hospital. Drug addiction is dragged out of the shadows by a rehab centre in Molyullah, amidst rolling hills and birdsong. The outstanding South West TAFE in Warrnambool would like a bus so that mums need not drive their kids in predawn darkness on country roads to get to class. Sandy Creek will get new netball courts thanks to our sports funding.

In Victoria's burgeoning South Asian community of nearly half a million, I was welcomed as the first Tamil member of parliament, even though I'm pretty watered down. Growing up I was unsure whether I belonged or whether I was pretending. At some point, I laid down roots. But the nation changed around me. Suddenly fitting in did not mean shedding your culture like a coat. To paraphrase the foreign minister, our cultural diversity is an element of our national power, which, in combination with our stable democracy, natural resources and skilled capability, is this middle power's superpower.

But who says lightning can't strike twice? To be here now as a senator for Victoria, a position that Labor has not held in nearly 20 years, is testament to the trust Victorians put in Labor, the Prime Minister's extraordinary work ethic, this Labor government, which did the work, our living treasures, the Labor rank and file, and Vic Labor, who backed my Senate run. Only 56 parliamentarians, including myself, have served in both houses since Federation. Only one senator has gone on to become Prime Minister—John Gorton, in 1968, following the death of Prime Minister Harold Holt. Both were my predecessors as members for Higgins. I can assure you that history will not repeat, but it does rhyme.

There are a few people to thank. I will be forever indebted to Paul Erikson, Jett Fogarty and Josh Pelach. As mentors you guided me to Higgins and then here. These were unwinnable seats until they weren't thanks to your cool heads. You are Labor's rainmakers. The Deputy Prime Minister and the member for Hawke are my mentors and therapists on speed dial who have been there every step of the way, even when Higgins was a mere twinkle in our eyes. Toughest for me was that prolonged period of uncertainty, and you, along with the Chief Government Whip, steadied the ship. I could not be here without my trusted staff and my backers in Higgins who believed in Project Michelle. Thank you.

My family are relieved that I am back to work. As a FIFO worker, my husband and daughter keep the home fires burning. Annika was absent during my first speech in 2022 due to year 12. This time it's Ash's turn. It's a gen Z house filled with laughter, K-pop, piercing bagpipe practice, cooking safaris and too much dog hair—clean it up, guys, clean it up! I am proud of the capable, resilient and good-humoured people you have become.

My parents, Robert and Vimala, are my biggest fans. They trod the familiar migrant path of self-determination when Labor luminaries Hawke and Keating were terraforming a modern Australia. As Tamils, they left Sri Lanka in the sixties for the UK, where I was born. They then forged a life in Zambia for 10 years, before choosing Australia over Canada—good call! They instilled in me a steely determination not to succeed but rather to get up, dust yourself off and keep going. I can assure you there was no tiara in our house. My sister, Romayne, is my closest confidante and like my brother, Steve, keeps the wheels on and turning.

My vision of the future 40 years from now is not rose-coloured but neither is it dystopian—in fact, far from it. It is a legacy that will be written on the faces of Australians as either the furrowed brow of worry, the set jaw of resolve or the squeals of delight in our grandkids. Which face greets us in our old age depends on whether we find the middle ground in this place. That middle ground, it turns out, is where most Australians are and likely to remain. It also means making tough decisions and explaining rather than weaponising the trade-offs, or else what is our problem today will be an even bigger one for our counterparts tomorrow. If politics is the art of what's possible, then, as a hardcore pragmatist, I will take the possible over the perfect any day. I thank the house.

Naturally, I rise to oppose this motion. The Nationals and One Nation are now competing to see who gets to drive the clown car of climate denial. They're railing against net zero by 2050—25 years away!—when the actual scientists are saying that we need to get to net zero in 10 years time, not in 25 years time, in order to have a safe climate future. Ordinary people who are experiencing the droughts, the fires, the floods and their house insurance skyrocketing see the link between climate action and the natural disasters that are driving up the cost of living and wrecking nature. Every day that we don't act to reduce climate pollution, the more it will cost us and the harder it will be to make that transition that we need for a safe climate future. The cheapest and the most effective time to act is now.

And most farmers know that. Farmers are on the front line of the climate crisis. They're already the first and the hardest hit, along with the fishing industry and the insurance industry and anyone who works outside in the punishing heat. Government agency ABARES has already calculated that farmers have lost a ton of money from climate. ABARES says that, in the last 25 years, average broadacre farm profits are down 22 per cent. Those losses have been worst in the cropping sector, reducing average profits by 35 per cent or $71,000 for a typical cropping farm. The Nationals and One Nation's climate denial would see farmers lose even more money while coal and gas companies laugh all the way to the bank. The Liberals are having a policy review. They don't even know what they think, but you can be damn sure that they'll back coal and gas. And Labor keeps on approving new coal and gas, which undermines their important investment in renewables.

Emissions are not coming down in Australia, with 10 years of denial from a coalition government and three years of Labor approving or extending new coal and gas, including approving Woodside's dirty gas project all the way out to 2070 as their first action after their re-election. They can't even bring themselves to admit that the marine heatwave and upstream inundation that is driving the algal bloom in South Australia is climate driven. It's going to be households, nature, farmers and industry that pay the price for continued climate inaction. Soon we'll have to set our 2035 targets. The science says to keep below two degrees, to have that safe climate future, we need net zero emissions by 2035. Australia still is the world's second-biggest fossil fuel exporter. We've got to do our fair share to limit global warming to under two degrees.

Australia is beginning to recognise the folly of net zero. Pauline Hanson's One Nation continues to provide leadership on this issue. We have championed this cause, and we continue to be a voice for working Australians. The government has given us weasel words and hides behind opaque language. An example of this was made by the Treasurer at the National Press Club recently when he said:

The global net zero transition will also reshape our revenue from resources.

While he declined to say so, we can only assume that 'the global net zero transition' means the elimination of fossil fuels. We can only assume that by 'resources' he means Australian coal and liquefied natural gas. In terms of his reference to revenue, the Treasurer means $160 billion of income generated by Australian coal and liquid natural gas exports.

Coal and LNG royalties for both state and federal governments amounted to about $28 billion in the financial year to 30 June 2024. This revenue is fundamental to the health of our economy and fundamental to Australian wealth. It represents jobs and a huge source of tax revenue for the government. This revenue would stop dead should we transition to a future without fossil fuels. This would wreck our economy, cost jobs and increase the cost of living for Australians. While the Treasurer has suggested this is a mere 'reshaping', this is a deliberate effort to disguise what would amount to a wrecking ball being taken to the Australian economy. If the Treasurer had wanted to be honest and straightforward about his true intentions, he would not have said:

The global net zero transition will also reshape our revenue from resources.

He would instead have said something along the lines of: 'Australia will eliminate fossil fuels and will no longer export coal and gas. This will wreak complete havoc on our economy, add to the queues of the unemployed and increase the cost of living for all Australians.' This kind of plain speech would have exposed the net zero agenda for what it is: an economic catastrophe for Australia for ideological reasons. The continued pursuit of net zero will inevitably mean that taxes will be raised and services will be cut.

Energy is the essential resource, as everything else in our economy depends on it. Its price and availability impact the price and availability of literally everything else. There is also an uncontroversial link between productivity and cheap, abundant power, which the government appears unwilling to acknowledge. The demand for affordable energy has never been higher. In 2024 the world burnt more coal, oil and gas than in any previous year, surpassing all previous records. Eighty-two per cent of the world's total primary energy demand is met by fossil fuels. Wind and solar are not feasible replacements for this demand and merely work as an add-on to fossil-fuel-generated baseload power. These numbers demonstrate that there is no true global net zero transition and no evolution away from fossil fuels.

Trillions of dollars have been wasted in the quest for net zero, and this policy is a complete failure. One Nation has been the thought leader on this issue and maintains that it will not be long before people in this place must stop pretending that net zero is achievable. Net zero represents a deliberate act of self-harm. Its only reality is a net zero benefit to the planet.

I note that this is not my first speech. Well, all I can say is: are you kidding? I speak not only for myself but as an advocate for younger Australians, who are facing an uncertain future. The motion put forward by Senator Hanson to scrap net zero indicates a severe lack of knowledge and a complete disregard for the future of our generation and the future of our country. Without a net zero target, there will be no Australian farmers, businesses or industries to support us. Net zero means waking up to a reality that Senator Hanson has not been able to grasp. In fact, Senator Hanson seems to be hell bent on exacerbating all of the consequences of climate change we have been warned about, all of the consequences that we are already seeing.

Climate change is impacting our environment now. I come from a farming community. I studied agriculture in high school. No sector should be more concerned about climate change than our agricultural industries, and no communities should be more concerned than our regional communities. Climate change is affecting our farmers and their livelihoods now.

In my home state of South Australia, we are seeing a once virtually pristine beach being ravaged by an algal bloom, with over 400 different species dying and being washed up on our beaches. We are holding our breath, hoping that the current, cooler weather will help cool the ocean and break up the bloom, which is threatening our thriving aquaculture. This bloom is the product of sea temperatures that have been about 2.5 degrees warmer than usual. This is one of the many unprecedented and extreme weather events that are directly attributable to global warming.

And it is happening on land too. Just last week, Need for Feed Australia sent truckloads of bales of hay to South Australian farmers, who are experiencing severe drought conditions, whilst in the eastern states we are seeing farmlands ravaged by extreme floods. Again, these are extreme weather events that are a direct consequence of global warming. It is agreed by scientists around the world that net zero is essential to combating this threat.

But our net zero target is also an economic driver. We aren't trading off, as Senator Hanson seems to believe. Renewables are the path to cheaper and more reliable power generation. We are absolutely committed to reaching 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. We are investing in renewables in ways that also provide real economic benefits and cost-of-living relief. Senator Hanson is clearly out of touch with Australians, who are taking up renewables with gusto because they want to cut both emissions and their power bills.

One in three Australian households now have solar panels on their property. Due to our Cheaper Home Batteries Program, we expect to have one million new batteries in Australian homes by 2030. Clean energy is undeniably an economic driver too, with global investment of $2.2 trillion just this year in clean energy worldwide—double the amount going to fossil fuels.

In China, clean energy now drives 20 per cent of GDP growth. Clean energy is about economic competitiveness. However, our future without renewables is much more economically precarious. Australians are currently paying the price for an energy system built on unreliable, aging energy infrastructure. These old power sources are way too financially exposed to the forever unpredictable global fossil fuel market, meaning Australian consumers are way too exposed to power-cost hikes. I am deeply disappointed that the coalition has decided to be led by One Nation on an issue as important as this one. Imagine not being able to grasp that our target for net zero emissions will positively impact Australian families, farmers and businesses.

Net zero is about ensuring future agricultural viability, it's about economic competitiveness, it's a social justice issue and it's about intergenerational climate justice. I don't apologise for caring about these things, and that's the position of the vast majority of my generation. We are not fooled by the talk of expensive nuclear energy plants being built on a never-never timeframe with technology that isn't even fully developed yet. (Time expired)

I should note that, in relation to nuclear power, we're the only OECD country in the world that doesn't have nuclear power for energy production. The coalition is following its own processes.

It sure is!

It's following its own processes with respect to the review of its policies relating to energy and emissions reduction. The coalition will not be diverted from that process—by Senator Ayres or anyone else in this chamber or outside of the coalition. It is absolutely crucial that the coalition, following the last election, engages in a considered and thoughtful review of all of the policies which it took to the last election, including policies relating to energy and emissions reduction. The coalition have been absolutely transparent with the Australian people that we are going through that policy review process—that, also, is fit and proper.

With respect to that review process, the coalition has set up a working group, reporting directly to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals. I am very, very pleased that my colleague in the other place Dan Tehan MP has the carriage of that process. Assisting Mr Tehan in relation to that process is a committee comprising a combination of members of the coalition, including the shadow Treasurer, Ted O'Brien; Senator Susan McDonald in relation to resources; Alex Hawke MP in relation to industry; Angie Bell in relation to environmental matters; and shadow assistant ministers Senator Dean Smith and my good friend and colleague Andrew Wilcox MP from Queensland.

The coalition will not be diverted or distracted from that policy review process. That policy review process provides an opportunity for every single coalition senator and every single coalition MP to have their say and for their say to be considered as part of that process, as the coalition settles its suite of policies to take to the next election.

Order! Every senator has been listened to in silence through this debate. I expect that that will continue as we listen to Senator Roberts.

To get to what matters most in this debate over net zero, we just have to ask Australians some simple questions: is your life more affordable or more expensive over the last five years? Are you paying more or less for groceries? Is your power bill cheaper? How about the cost of a new car—how about your insurance premiums? Has your salary increased more than inflation? The answers are almost the same. It hasn't gotten better; it's far worse. All of these problems Australia is suffering from can be traced back directly to net zero policies.

This isn't just a culture war, as some people try to write it off as; this is a fight for the survival and prosperity of all Australians. This is a fight to restore our country's position as the envy of the world. Australia is the richest country in the world for resources. We have abundant energy resources. Australia is awash with vast amounts of proven coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, rare earths and critical minerals. We should have the cheapest power prices in the world, yet we pay more for electricity than the countries to which we sell our resources. Back in 2004, the energy white paper proudly boasted Australia's average price of electricity as being just a touch over 4c a kilowatt hour—amongst the cheapest in the world. Now the average is 33c a kilowatt hour, just 20 years later. Japan imports most of its energy resources from Australia. Japan's electricity used to be four times more expensive than Australia's. Now, ours is 20 per cent more expensive than Japan's—all because of net zero. Thank you so much!

We don't make Fords, Holdens, Toyotas or Mitsubishis in this country anymore, because of net zero. Our steel mills, like the one in Whyalla, are going broke because of net zero. The copper smelters, like the one in Mount Isa, are shutting down because of net zero. Chocolate-maker Cadbury have said they may have to pull out of Australia because it has become undeniably expensive to manufacture in Australia. In the words of Matt Barrie, 'Australia is about to be a country that cannot make a chocolate bar'—because of net zero.

Wind and solar pushers have been promising Australia that it's the cheapest way to go. They've been saying it for 25 years, since the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was implemented in the year 2000, under John Howard, yet here we are today, facing desolation. With the largest amount of wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro on the grid than ever in recorded history, life has only gotten more expensive. As the solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro increase, electricity costs increase. This is the experience of every country that has gone down the path of net zero. As electricity gets more expensive, good jobs in manufacturing are getting shipped overseas and life gets worse for that country.

The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Canavan, which is also shown at item No. 14 on today's order of business:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Albanese Government's decision to allow imports of beef from the US could have serious implications for Australia's biosecurity status and our $92 billion agriculture industry, public health and the environment.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

There is not a much more important topic for Australia's agricultural industry, and indeed for all Australians, than the biosecurity settings of our country. We are very lucky to have the cleanest, greenest, safest food supply system in the world. Not only is that important for Australians, who get to eat that beautiful food; it underpins the economic strength of our agricultural industry, because we do export something like 60 per cent of our farmed produce overseas. So it's absolutely integral that we maintain that safe system, those strong biosecurity settings, to keep the markets open in overseas countries.

So it has been a bit of a shock over the past week to hear the government announce that it would be changing those biosecurity settings. Some were concerned they are potentially weakening those biosecurity settings when it announced that it would allow US beef to have greater access into the market. The fundamental problem here is that the government hasn't been able to answer basic questions about on what basis this decision has been made and on exactly what terms US beef will be allowed in. I do and will recognise that, since 2019, we have allowed American beef into Australia. It has been permitted. I don't believe there has been much or any beef imported from America, but it has been done. It was approved under the former government under the strictest conditions. In particular, there had to be traceability on US beef to ensure that, in the box, though it may have had an American flag on it, there was no beef coming from Mexico or other parts of the Americas, where there are and may be diseases, like mad cow disease, which would be devastating if it ever came to these shores. The Americans generally struggle to provide that level of traceability. They don't have the same systems—the same supply chain assurance systems—that we have in this country. In this country, every calf is marked. It gets a little tag in its ear—it's called an NLIS tag—and it will make sure that, every time that cow or bull is moved through its life, it's recorded where it has come from and where it goes. Therefore, we can tell the final customer, wherever they may be, exactly where the beef in that box has been raised and has come from and assure them that there's no disease in those areas. That system does not apply to anything to that extent in the United States. It is not unusual it doesn't, because the US beef industry largely serves its own domestic market. It doesn't seek to have these supply chain assurance systems in place like we do to open up overseas markets.

The key thing here is it would seem like the government is not insisting that the same traceability requirements we have and impose on our beef sector should apply to the US beef sector. As I said, the details still remain somewhat murky about this. But I do have concerns if we are going to impose more stringent and strict requirements on our own beef sector than would be applied to a competitor in another country. I mean, surely, we should be able to tell the Australian people that we will seek to apply the same standards to our businesses as those that imported products have to comply with, in terms of safety requirements on others. Otherwise the American producers would have a natural economic advantage because of our policy settings, and that would be very inequitable to Australian beef producers.

This issue has not been helped, though, by the government's confused messaging here. There's obviously a very political element to this because it is wrapped up with demands from President Trump to open up our access to their beef and to do other things in our policy settings. So this change was always going to be viewed with a degree of cynicism, and the government has been left completely flat-footed and unprepared for basic questions. In fact, we saw the spectacle on the weekend of the trade minister saying one thing about a phone call in one hour and then the next hour saying something else completely different. So it's absolutely legitimate for the Australian agricultural sector to want answers to questions on this issue. That's why we have moved this motion today. That's why we're pursuing this through other means in the Senate.

The Australian farm industry deserves to know exactly on what basis this decision has been made. It deserves to know the protections that are in place for the industry. Even more importantly, Australia as a whole deserves to know that those protections are in place, because some of these diseases can affect human health as well. It is a very serious matter, and the government should take it much more seriously than they have.

I rise to speak on the matter of public importance moved by Senator Canavan in relation to beef imports. I take on board everything that Senator Canavan shared with the Senate, and I'll probably touch on a couple of things as well as we go through. But I wish to make this abundantly clear—and I say this as someone who has been on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for 20 years and chaired it for 18: the Albanese government, as with every previous government in history, has made a massive effort in the biosecurity area. We've got to get this right. No government is going to do anything that could undermine our biosecurity.

I note that Senator Canavan talked about what happened previously with biosecurity, but let's not forget that we were left with a biosecurity system in an unfunded mess during the last two terms of your government. Let's not forget that. The Liberals and the Nationals did absolutely nothing to make importers pay their fair share for over a decade. While I have no doubt that Senator Canavan's motion will stir up a fair bit of conversation, I'd like to inform and remind those listening, as Senator Canavan said, that we have imported beef from the United States and we've been doing it since 2019—and, yes, we have been doing it with those strict protocols. There is no absolutely no doubt about that. But the same departmental officials that assessed that way back then, when the coalition was in charge of it, are the same ones now. The US beef imports review has undergone a rigorous science and risk based assessment over the past decade. The decision by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was undertaken by the department's independent scientists in the same way as all other technical market access requests.

Australia is a trading nation, with one in four jobs relying on trade, and our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this. Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking export years. Last year they were worth $14 billion. Supported by reinstated and improved market access, exports, including to our largest market in the US and the second-largest in China, have increased 55 per cent since we came to government. As the agriculture minister and other senior members of the government, including the Prime Minister, have continued to say, and as I said earlier, we will not compromise on biosecurity and our enviable biosecurity status is not up for negotiation. Any suggestions from those opposite to the contrary are incorrect—given the severely underfunded biosecurity system we inherited, as I said before.

The US was granted beef access in 2019 and requested expanded access in 2020, well before the current US administration. These conversations started five years ago. Australia has been engaging with them on this matter since then, including, as I'm well informed, by the previous coalition government, to progress the issue.

Under international rules, Australia responds to market access requests from our trading partners in line with our World Trade Organization obligations, just as our trading partners respond to Australia's market access requests. And, while the opposition are certainly stirring up a bit of a scare campaign around biosecurity risks to Australia, I say again—and I don't know how many times I have to say it: Australia does not trade off our strong biosecurity system, science based risk assessments, import policies or biosecurity requirements.

The US beef imports review has undergone a rigorous science and risk based assessment over the past decade. I am ably informed by the minister that we have also engaged with industry and have made sure that they are consulted all the way along. Officials have regularly and extensively engaged key industry stakeholders, such as Cattle Australia, the Australian Meat Industry Council and the Red Meat Advisory Council over many years. In fact, Mr Will Evans, CEO of Cattle Australia, told ABC Radio National recently that the department had undertaken a technical scientific assessment, and, he said, 'We have to put faith in them.' He also said: 'We are a global advocate for rules and science-based trading.' He also said, 'we have to recognise that the science has been used here to make this decision'. Mr Evans also said that the US was an important trading partner and Australia needed to maintain the relationship with them.

Engagement with the industry started in 2017, with an initial review for beef and beef products from Japan and the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United States and Vanuatu. (Time expired)

I agree with Senator Canavan on one thing, and that is: biosecurity is important. In fact, at the beginning of the last parliament we were in almost a groundhog day situation—as we are today, with the Nats putting up an inquiry into biosecurity. The Greens cooperated with the crossbench and with the government. We looked into foot-and-mouth disease. And then we had a very constructive inquiry into the red imported fire ant program and incursion, as well as into varroa mites. So this is something that the parliament does take very seriously and the Greens take very seriously.

On this particular issue: last week, when this broke, I did speak to the Labor Party and I spoke to the minister and suggested that we immediately organise a briefing for the rural and regional affairs committee, for any senator who would like to attend and have a private question and answer session with the department, and then see how we felt after that. And I understood that that issue is in train now.

Where Senator Canavan and I don't agree is this. I think there is a very important issue facing farmers that the National Party and the Liberal Party don't want to talk about, and that's climate change. There is no bigger threat to the farming community and to our agricultural communities than climate change. The risks from climate change are prolonged and more frequent. There are much more destructive droughts, as we are seeing. There are heat waves, floods, pestilence—I could go on. Our entire food system is at risk from climate change if we don't take climate action.

So, if you want to talk about the risks to farmers, then, yes, biosecurity is a risk, but take climate change seriously. This nonsense around trying to get rid of net zero—I mean, what could be more important to our farming community than all of us reducing our emissions and trying to keep global warming to 1½ to two degrees, when we know that, beyond that, we're going to be facing an increasingly dangerous situation with climate change?

So, while we're talking about biosecurity, on one hand it's a good distraction from Mr Barnaby Joyce's Nationals' push to get rid of net zero in this country, which I can just tell from the vote in the chamber is certainly supported by Senator Canavan and some in the Liberal Party. I mean, seriously? You talk about representing farmers? You talk about steers. You talk about bulls. Well, let's talk about the bullshit in this argument that the National Party have been executing for the last 15 years, since I've been in this place, undermining climate action—undermining what we need to do to face the great challenge of our time, and putting farming communities and agricultural communities at risk. That's what they're doing, and they need to be called out on it. And I'd like to see the farming and peak agricultural bodies come out and call out this bullshit as well, because I've had enough of it and a lot of other Australians have had enough of it.

Senator Whish-Wilson, I know you're passionate about that. I've worked closely with you for many, many years. You really are fired up, but I ask that you retract that one word that was mentioned twice, please.

It's one word that farmers love to use, but I retract it.

Firstly, I want to thank my colleague Senator Canavan for raising this important topic for debate. As we all know, maintaining strong biosecurity is absolutely critical for protecting our Australian farmers and the agricultural sector. Biosecurity cannot be taken too seriously.

Some of us here would remember the first few weeks of the Labor government in the last term of parliament and the major concerns with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak that we had to manage quickly. The Australian beef industry also had to respond quickly, because it's not us here in this place who suffer; indeed, it's the cattle stations and farmers across Australia that suffer when outbreaks occur.

Yet, with this latest decision, the Australian beef industry was blindsided by its own government's announcement last week. There was no consultation, but of course that's a common theme with this government, as we saw in the last term, and unfortunately we're already seeing it happen here and we're only a week into a new term. In fact, the government themselves cannot even get their story right with this deal. It's been well reported that the Minister for Trade and Tourism publicly stated that this issue had been directly raised with the US president in a phone call to our prime minister. If only there were a phone call that had occurred between the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States, but it wasn't true, and an hour later he had to retract it. This creates only confusion and requires us to ask the important questions to ensure the PM isn't throwing the beef industry overboard in order to finally secure that phone call or a meeting with the President.

Let me be clear: the United States is one of our most important allies, if not the most important ally. They are our strategic partner in AUKUS, a vital trade partner and a friend in an increasingly uncertain world. But, even in a strong partnership, we must stand up for our national interests. We must protect our beef industry, our world-class biosecurity standards and, indeed, the livelihood of our precious farmers. Being a reliable ally doesn't mean being a pushover in the hopes of a handshake in Washington.

Once again, Labor is making decisions that will hurt Australian agriculture, exactly like the reckless live sheep export ban, which is impacting farmers in my home state of Western Australia. They're abandoning hardworking farmers and regional communities without a credible plan for the future. Labor's contradictions are mixed messages and they risk undermining not just our beef industry but also our credibility with international partners. We cannot afford to look this disorganised on the world stage, especially when our own farmers are asking why we'd import something they never asked for.

I think that on these debates we should always listen to those who are on the very front line. Australian Black Angus beef producer Robert McKenzie said, on ABC Radio National:

All it is is just playing in the hand of the US and bending over and giving up and not looking after our biosecurity.

…   …   …

Our appetite for US beef isn't there. We exported last year 1.3 million tonne of beef back to the US. So why would we want to import US beef that potentially is still, well, we don't know whether it's going to be US beef, we don't know whether it's going to be Canadian beef, we don't know whether it's going to be Mexican beef. Why would we take that risk, bring it into Australia when clearly we don't want it?

These concerns are the concerns of Australian farmers. We need to listen to them and understand exactly why this is happening.

This is why we're pushing for a review into this decision. It may be sound, but let's get to the bottom of it. The government must give the Australian beef industry and our farmers the confidence that there is a plan in place to manage any emerging biosecurity risk with this new deal. We simply cannot rely on US biosecurity measures. We must be proactive and protect our industry and our farmers as a priority. The greatest risk is rushing this deal and not ensuring that we have the appropriate biosecurity protections in place. So we're calling for an independent review into this decision to ensure that we're getting it right for the Australian beef farmers. It's not a big ask. Irrespective of country of origin, it will end up being the Australian consumer who will dictate what they purchase: Australian beef or beef from the United States. Well, we all know that it's important to get this right. A simple inquiry into this would absolutely be a sensible and essential thing to do.

This is not my first speech. In response to the lack of response from the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—I got nothing, zero, the inside of a doughnut—I asked why the government is targeting the beef and sheep industries. No response. I asked which agricultural industry would be targeted next. Nothing. I asked: will imported beef from somewhere be labelled correctly? Still nothing. So, when a farmer asks me about this, my response will have to be, 'No-one knows.' What a sad state of affairs.

It is of the utmost importance to understand the reason that the ban on the import of beef from the USA was put in place: because they cannot trace back to the farm any beef originating in Canada, which has mad cow disease, or Mexico, which has foot-and-mouth disease. The ban is absolutely essential for our biosecurity. Here's what we do know: foot-and-mouth disease could be an $80 billion hit to our agricultural industry. BSE, or mad cow disease, could harm Australians. Here's the quiet part out loud: it seems the Prime Minister is happy to sacrifice Australia's biosecurity to get a meeting with the President of the United States.

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance moved by Senator Canavan. As a senator for Queensland, I am proud to speak about our mighty beef industry. My home state of Queensland has the largest beef sector of any state by some distance, accounting for about half of the national cattle herd. Biosecurity matters to all of us. The whole world knows just how good Australian beef is. The beef sector supports businesses and good jobs right across our region and throughout the entire supply chain—like JBS, located near Rockhampton, which Senator Chisholm and I recently visited. That's why it is so important that the government makes decisions on this sector based on facts.

Allow me to share some of those facts with the chamber this evening. Fact No. 1: beef from the United States has been able to be imported into Australia since 2019, when the coalition was last in government and, might I add, when the mover of this MPI was a cabinet minister. Fact No. 2: the US beef imports review has undergone a rigorous, decade-long, science and risk based assessment, including when those opposite were in government—'when those opposite were in government'; let that sink in a bit. Fact No. 3: the decision by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was taken by the department's independent scientists, in the same way that all other market requests are made. There's nothing new here. Fact No. 4: the coalition left Australia's biosecurity system in an unfunded mess when they were last in government. Under this government, Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking export years. Last year, our beef exports were worth $14 billion. Supported by reinstated and improved market access, exports have increased by 55 per cent since we came to government, backed in by our work to reinstate and reimprove market access, including in the US and China. As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Prime Minister have both said, we will never ever compromise on biosecurity.

Those are the facts. But does anyone think those opposite have bothered to learn them? Well, the shadow minister for trade, investment and tourism was asked on the ABC's Afternoon Briefing whether he had read the department's report on the US beef review. Patricia Karvelas asked the shadow minister:

They've published their report. Have you read it?

And the shadow minister said:

There was a draft report, yes. There was a draft report that they released a little while ago.

Patricia Karvelas said:

Today we have access to that—

referring to the final report—

I've looked through it. Have you?

To which the shadow minister responded:

I haven't read it; no.

The coalition have been calling for a review into a report that they have not even bothered to read. Let that one sink in for a bit.

Perhaps they would listen to some prominent voices in the beef sector, which this government has been engaged with throughout this process. Take the voice of Will Evans, the Chief Executive Officer of Cattle Australia. He said, 'The reality is that science has been used to make a technical assessment and that's where we are today.' Or take the voice of Michael Crowley, the Managing Director at Meat and Livestock Australia, who said:

Australia maintains one of the strictest biosecurity regimes in the world to protect our livestock industries, environment, and food safety

…   …   …

The finalised federal government health certification and import permit conditions reflect stringent safeguards to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases and uphold the integrity of Australia's biosecurity system.

This really says it all about those opposite. They are all about the politics and not about the facts. This government will continue to listen to the science, invest in biosecurity and back our Aussie farmers.

I'm disappointed that the tone of the debate on this important matter of public importance has descended to political talking points provided by the minister's office that really don't reflect the reality of what has happened in the last week. We all, of course, agree that biosecurity is very important. We agree that the beef industry is very important. But what we obviously can't agree on is the importance of transparency.

I was absolutely shocked last week to see that a long-held decision to protect Australia's beef industry—and our biosecurity measures in that regard—was being upended. It is true that the US have been able to send meat to Australian shores and to the Australian market since 2019, based on their having changed their practices to provide traceability of their animals from birth through grazing and processing through to Australia. This is an important point. This is the point that Australian farmers, Australian livestock agents, Australian feedlots and, finally, Australian processors have to comply with.

What has changed is that we are now looking at a break in that transparency of traceability for stock. It could be coming from Canada, it could be coming from Mexico, or it could be coming from a further-south American country. Until we have satisfaction that that supply chain is clear and transparent, we owe it to the Australian beef industry to be able to demonstrate that. Last week, the beef industry were told on Wednesday afternoon that they would receive a briefing. On Thursday morning, they received the review report—at the same time as the statement went out. The initial statement from the department said that applicants could still apply for an import permit, which was not what the government then said—that the borders were open and that we could import beef that had come through the US processing system. It is extraordinary; what the department is saying and what the government is saying are two quite different things.

All that we're asking is that we should respect the people who will be most impacted by this decision. One group is the Australian beef producers—the graziers across Australia. But what about the beef processors? Beef processing is the largest employer in regional Australia. It's the last great manufacturing industry that we have in agriculture. Those men and women work right across the country. They deserve an answer to this question, and, of course, Australian consumers deserve an answer.

At the same time that this announcement was made, there was an outbreak of flesh-eating disease in Mexico. I'm just asking that we have an ability to stop, to pause, to not trade off our industry's agreements in trying to get a meeting with the American President, and to just say, 'Are we all truly satisfied?' I'm asking that we maintain the same sorts of protections that the Australian sector has to maintain. Are we going to truly protect our borders?

We heard a lot of rhetoric from the Labor members about what they were left with and what's happened. Well, in the three years that they have been the government, we have seen no pull-up on the movement of fire ants and we have seen the further expansion of varroa mites, which will mean the very real risk of lack of pollination for crops, as well as native flora, this year. These are very serious issues. I don't have confidence that, once we have disease in this country, we have the capacity to stop it. In the 1970s, I lived through the great shooting of stock to manage tuberculosis and brucellosis in the far north of this country. But we no longer have the frontline resources of the lands department and those people on the ground. So I think that this deserves transparency and I think this is an important matter.

The time for discussion has now expired.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning online gambling, the Draft 2025 electricity network options report, first home buyers and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Economics Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—

Senators Colbeck and McGrath

Participating members [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 election]: Senators Cadell, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Human Rights — Joint Statutory Committee—

Appointed—Senator Thorpe

Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

PFAS — Select Committee —

Appointed—

Senators Brockman, Cadell, Ghosh and Whiteaker

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

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees —

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet, Hanson, Payman, Roberts, Stacey and Whitten

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Industry Research and Development (Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally (DRIVEN) Program) Instrument 2024, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2024L01460].

What a mouthful! It's an instrument made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. This is where the fun bit starts. This regulation One Nation seeks to revoke is a $60 million slush fund that climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen—there he is again—will have to splash around on pet projects. Specifically, this is $60 million for the installation and repair of electric vehicle chargers. These are electric vehicle chargers from which only some of the most well-off of Australians, who can afford an EV, will benefit. While rents are skyrocketing, houses are more unaffordable than ever, groceries keep getting more expensive and beer is heading towards $15 a pint, taxpayers should not be slugged with more taxes to pay for this government's slush fund.

Why is the government obsessed with putting everyone into electric vehicles? Some of them have decent speed, admittedly, when you put your foot down, yet the range on purely electric vehicles—battery electric vehicles—is mostly terrible. It gets even worse when trying to tow something. Forums for the Ford F-150 Lightning, a battery powered ute, are full of horror stories that unfold as soon as a trailer is attached. This is worldwide.

Australians already know all of this and are voting with their wallets. The rejection of battery EVs shows up in new car sales figures. Battery electric vehicles were just 6.5 per cent of new car sales, and how long have they been offered? Years. Even here, in the capital of 'Wokeistan', Canberra, home of the country's loudest virtue signallers, battery electric vehicles are just 3.6 per cent of all vehicles on the road. This is despite every effort of government and multinational corporations trying to pull Australians away from the trusty petrol and diesel engine. There has been a near decade of propaganda and lies trying to convince Australians to make the switch—we're not buying it.

Never mind the hugely expensive tax breaks that give an EV buyer tens of thousands of dollars. These tax breaks include exemptions from the lower luxury car tax threshold; exemptions from the penalties under the new vehicle efficiency standard, or the ute tax, as it has become known; no fuel excise at 50.8 cents a litre; exemptions from fringe benefits tax, representing a $12,000 saving on a $60,000 EV but costing taxpayers $550 million a year. Taxpayers pay for this. This is Robin Hood in reverse; robbing the poor to pay for the wealthy. Plus there is an array of rebates from state governments across the country. They've thrown just about every tax break in the book at EVs, and still Australians aren't fussed over the inferior electric vehicle products.

More than 95 per cent of the vehicles on the road still contain internal combustion engines, the trusty petrol and diesel, the reliable petrol and diesel, the safe petrol and diesel. Naturally aspirated, turbocharged, supercharged or a hybrid set up, Australians have rightly shunned battery EVs for engines that make a noise when turned on. Tradies cried out in horror when the legendary V8, from the Toyota LandCruiser 200 series and utes, was removed from market in anticipation of the coming government regulations and crackdowns.

Are EVs cheaper to run? Well, a CarExpert road trip test throws real doubt on that. They drove two BMWs on a road trip from Melbourne to Sydney. They were the same exact car, the same year of make, with the same start and the same finish point. The only difference is that one was the battery electric version and the other was hydrocarbon fuelled. When they arrived in Sydney, the electric vehicle charging had cost more for the road trip than filling up with the most expensive 98 petrol. Of course, electricity isn't free, and neither are these chargers. The minister's slush fund that we're seeking to disallow here is paying for the installation of chargers that are businesses in themselves, so we're paying for a business. Taxpayers will foot the bill for installing a charger, and the EV business will reap all the profits from the charge they sell through it forever, for eternity. We would never do this with service stations, because it's bloody ridiculous. Taxpayers should not be paying for the profits of these often foreign multinational companies who run charging services.

Then there's the fire risk. Everyone knows about this. The electric vehicle industry's dirty little secret: the batteries and these chargers present an extreme fire risk. Car ferries carrying thousands of new car deliveries have been left to burn and potentially sink after battery fires have broken out mid-ocean. Just last month, News.com reported:

There are concerns an abandoned EV carrier floating aimlessly in the Pacific Ocean could continue to burn for weeks …

Salvage operators have finally reached the Morning Midas around 350km south of Adak, Alaska, a week after it first caught fire and 22 crew were rescued by the US Coast Guard after being forced to abandon ship.

The floating inferno is said to have been caused by the lithium-iron batteries in the 70 electric vehicles on board—batteries that can cause fires that can burn for weeks.

Some apartment tower complexes have banned battery electric vehicles in their car parks. Our fire departments are sounding the alarm on the increased risk battery fires present. These battery fires often can't be simply put out and must be left for days to burn themselves out. One suggestion to deal with an electric vehicle fire is to have the burning wreck forklifted—imagine the forklift driver!—into a waiting shipping container of water to try and keep it contained. That's a suggestion. Seriously! That's the best firefighting strategy we have when one of these EVs goes up.

Insurance companies have confirmed the risk in electric vehicles is real with their increased premiums. Insurance comparison site Compare the Market conducted a study of 12 insurers and has shown the top five bestselling EVs are 43 per cent more expensive to insure than similar internal combustion models. So EVs are more expensive to buy, more expensive to drive, more expensive to charge and more expensive to insure. We are running out of categories to find out where EVs are actually cheaper.

What about environmentally friendly? Let's ask that question. As for being environmentally friendly, the process for making batteries is one of the most environmentally destructive in the world, killing the environment to save the planet. The hundreds of kilograms of minerals that go into a battery include aluminium, copper, steel, iron, graphite, nickel, lithium, manganese and cobalt. These require extremely intensive mining and refinement and huge, huge amounts of energy. The resources and energy consumed in electric vehicle manufacturing is way above those consumed in making a petrol or diesel engine car. Many of these raw minerals are sourced from conflict-torn places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, using child labourers and slaves. The overall environmental impact of building an EV is devastating, as is the social impact. The raw materials are sourced from ethically questionable countries and processed almost exclusively by Communist China controlled companies. That's where the focus on EVs leaves Australians—completely reliant on China.

Then there's Minister Tony Burke, whose Chinese EV says 'Don't plug in the phone.' Worries about being reliant on China aren't overblown. Government departments are warning Labor politicians of the same thing. The Strategist journal reported in November:

Senate estimates … heard the remarkable revelation that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has had to take 'precautions' based on warnings from his own department to protect himself and the nation's sensitive information from Burke's own Chinese-made electric car—

He's got to protect himself and the security of the country from his Chinese electric car—

The risks with such cars, according to Home Affairs officials, might include having data collected from the owner's phone if it were connected to the car, voice calls eavesdropped on, image collection from the car's external cameras and geolocation tracking—meaning that if Burke drove to a sensitive government location the car's manufacturer would be able to see.

If these are risks to ministers, those same risks are inherent for all Australians. Bloody ridiculous.

What is even more confusing about the government EV push is that petrol and diesel engines are only getting better and more efficient in their newest versions. Did anyone mention weight? Electric vehicles are humongous in weight. Small, turbocharged, extremely efficient diesel engines were becoming the powertrain of choice, especially in small cars. Fuel efficiency numbers we couldn't have dreamt of 20 years ago were being beaten. Then all the car makers in the world, and many stupid governments around the world, seemingly overnight, had to imagine that petrol vehicles and diesel engines were dead. Imagine that. Everyone would be driving an EV, apparently blind to or not caring for the downsides in range, resources and longevity. Just as we were getting to some of the cleanest, most efficient diesel and petrol vehicles ever made, why did the government decided no-one would ever want to drive them again? They decided for the taxpayers. They decided for the citizens of Australia.

Why does the government want to splash billions of dollars into technology that Australians clearly don't want and that is environmentally reprehensible? The answer may lie in the plan for Australia's energy grid. The government needs electric vehicles hooked up to the grid under their plans for a consumer energy resources like EV batteries to be connected to virtual power plants. They want to use your car as a battery. The government can't afford to build all the batteries needed under their net zero plan. They don't even know how much. There is no plan. So the government wants Australians to buy an EV with a battery that can be taken over and discharged to the grid. They don't tell you that, do they, but that is what they are wanting. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency says that batteries from EVs 'can help stabilise the power grid by supplying power back during times of high demand'. There it is. Do you hear that in their advertisements? No.

Like many things, this will start off as a voluntary scheme, currently called 'bidirectional charging' or 'vehicle to grid'. That sounds good, but think about what it means. It means stealing your electricity when you want it. Then the inevitable threat of blackouts and the instability of the electricity grid under net zero will become an emergency, and everyone with an EV will be forced to participate. What we have now is power shortages in some states as they destroy perfectly good coal and gas generation and try and fail to replace it with solar and wind. So we've got a shortage of reliable electricity. And now they want to convert the car fleet, the transport fleet, to EVs to add more demand to the electricity sector. Then they want to promote artificial intelligence, which is an electricity hog. And then they want to support bitcoin mining. Where is all this going to lead? It's going to lead to massive, sky-high prices as well as shortages, unreliability, instability and insecurity.

The government's plan, or what it claims is a plan, is all very complicated, but they don't know what they're doing. That is fact. One Nation's solution is much simpler: Australians should be allowed to drive whatever car they want, whatever car they can afford, whether it's a four-wheel drive, a ute or a smart car. Only One Nation has a policy to cancel all policies which lead to the death of the V8 engine being provided as an option to Australian car buyers. Porsche and Mercedes-Benz said that EVs would take over, and they stopped making V8s. Now they're bringing back V8s and they're scaling back their EV plans. I ask the Senate to revoke this electric vehicle slush fund and join One Nation in bringing back the V8.

I rise in response to Senator Roberts's disallowance motion pertaining to the Industry Research and Development (Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally (DRIVEN) Program) Instrument 2024. Transport pollution is rising fast, and by 2030 it will be Australia's biggest source of emissions. We need all shoulders to the wheel to drive emissions down, because right now, under current policy settings, we are on track for a catastrophic three degrees of warming. Let's be clear: the government's current set of policies isn't going to bring down transport emissions anytime soon. This $60 million program to install EV chargers at dealerships won't shift the dial on emissions, but it will support uptake at the margins, and that's something.

EVs can and should be part of the solution. They're cheap to run, especially if you have solar panels, and they're easy to drive, but price and charging access remain real barriers to widespread uptake. The global cost of EVs and battery technology is taking care of the upfront costs of EVs. Soon they'll be cheaper than internal combustion vehicles at dealerships, and, of course, filling up on electrons only costs a fraction of the cost of petrol. But removing the other major barrier of range anxiety requires an abundance of charging stations. This, of course, means we need good government policy, and Australia's is not yet up to scratch.

Globally there are 11 electric vehicles for every public charging station, but in Australia there are 68 EVs for every public charger. In that context, this disallowance motion makes zero sense. One Nation's attempt to block modest investment in Australian businesses that is helping dealerships become part of the clean transport transition isn't just petty; it's counterproductive. This program is supporting dealerships to be part of the transition, to use their existing relationships with their communities to encourage EV uptake. On that level, this policy makes sense. No, it won't transform the sector, but it can help normalise EVs, especially in regional areas where local dealers are trusted and embedded in their communities. That's soft power that we shouldn't be ignoring. So, while this won't turn the tide on transport emissions, it shouldn't be blocked or opposed.

But let's be clear: EVs alone won't solve Australia's transport emissions problem. To truly cut emissions, we need serious investment in regular, reliable and well-connected public transport. That's what'll get people out of cars and off short-haul flights. We can't afford more delay. If we're serious about meeting our climate commitments, we need to overhaul our transport system, not just tinker around the edges.

The government will not be supporting this motion, funnily enough. The Albanese Labor government is backing Australia's automotive industry to thrive with the auto sector's EV shift. That's why we've launched the $60 million Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally Program, the DRIVEN program. The program provides practical assistance to Australian automotive dealers and repairers to install EV chargers, helping Australian small business to gear up for the EV shift. The first stream under the program gives dealerships and repairers a rebate of $2,500 for eligible smart EV chargers. The next stream of the program will support dealerships to install fast chargers.

The DRIVEN program is part of the Albanese government's Driving the Nation Fund. It complements the launch this year of the new vehicle efficiency standard, which is designed to ensure car companies prioritise Australia for more EV choices for Australian consumers. Australia's dealerships and repairers play a big role in our communities, educating customers about electrification, and they are significant employers and trainers of new energy apprentices—which is the way of the future. It is a practical step to help dealers keep on top of industry electrification trends and the rapidly evolving expectations of OEMs and customers. By investing in EV infrastructure, we're making it easier for them to showcase the benefits of electric mobility, meet the needs of customers and workers, and be ready for selling more EVs as part of the automotive industry transformation.

This program provides practical assistance to Australian automotive dealers and repairers to install electric vehicle chargers, helping Australian small business gear up for the EV shift. To disallow this program while the program is underway would undermine the work that these dealers are already undertaking right now. The coalition opposite need to tell us whether they stand with our dealers, with Australian small business and with the mobility shift of the future, or whether they're going to follow Pauline Hanson's One Nation down the deluded and ideological pathway of taking the country backwards.

The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, it being after 6.30, we shall deal with it tomorrow.

The committee is considering the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 and amendment (1) on sheet 3373 moved by Senator Hanson. The question is that that amendment be agreed to. As a division is required, it will be dealt with tomorrow. There is another amendment, but the mover is not here. As no-one else wishes to speak, I give the call to Senator Hanson.

I wish to ask a question of the minister. Minister, can you explain to the people of Australia how you intend to reign in the $3 billion that has been rorted out of Medicare on a yearly basis?

Thanks for the question, Senator Hanson. Indeed, the purpose of the bill that we're presently debating is one of a number of things that the government is doing to deal with integrity issues in the Medicare scheme. And you're right: I think everyone in this place would appreciate that it is a really important objective. It's for this reason that we have brought this legislation before the chamber.

This legislation does a range of things to enable some of the existing powers that are available to authorised officers within the government, for them to take enforcement action where they believe that fraud may be occurring. Some of these acts have been in place for a long time—since 1994—and over time various amendments have created inconsistencies between the kinds of things that may be investigated and the powers that may be used. The legislation seeks to remedy those and give additional powers to investigate fraud.

I think it is worth saying that this bill directly responds to the recommendations from the Philip review. I believe that is the place where you obtained your assessment about the scale of fraud, and the government is, indeed, concerned about that. That's why the bill is before the chamber.

Sorry, I'm totally confused. It seems to have gone right over the top of my head. Are you acknowledging that there is fraud? But you couldn't really specify to me how you are addressing the fraud. How are you addressing those people who are not entitled to Medicare, funded by the taxpayer, and stopping them from accessing this? How are you going to stop them from accessing the PBS when they get the scripts from the doctor, which is also paid for by the taxpayer? I want to know: what are you doing to address the fraud that is actually happening?

I think you would agree that Australians know that the overwhelming majority of our doctors and our health professionals are honest and hardworking and comply with Medicare rules—

It's $3 billion a year; it's not pocket money.

Senator Hanson, I'm attempting to answer your question. If you wish to interject, perhaps you would like to make another contribution. Shall I sit down?

Minister, what you're saying is that you're trying to address it. You're trying to just make it appear as if it's not much money. It's $3 billion—that's how much we're talking about—a year. What I want to know is: how do you intend address this? Australians are taxed to the hilt. They can't make it stretch anymore; they cannot meet their means. This government is putting us into a $1.2 trillion debt. The only way you can do it is to increase productivity, which we've seen decline. There's no investment in Australia whatsoever. The only other way you are going to do it is by increasing taxes. We cannot afford this tax on the Australian people. I'm asking: How do you intend to rein in the $3 billion that has been rorted out of the system? What are your answers to it?

Before I call the minister, I remind all senators that they should not interject across the chamber.

The Philip review sought to address many of the issues that you're raising. We commissioned Dr Pradeep Philip to undertake an independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance, and those are exactly the kinds of things that you are now raising with me. The amendments that are here before us come out of that review. They're a direct response to that. They're about making those programs, such as the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the child benefits schedule—which I think Australians value—operate in the way that they're intended to.

What the Philip review found was that there are actors in the system who are either unintentionally or dishonestly obtaining payments, and this bill directly responds to those findings. The measures in the bill, we expect, will only directly impact a very small percentage of practitioners and businesses that are engaged in noncompliance and fraud, but it is important. More generally, patients and practitioners will benefit from better protective health benefit systems that provide more secure access to safe health care and services.

I'll step through some of the measures that are in the bill that we're presently debating. The bill changes the timeframe during which Medicare claims for bulk-billed services may be made, taking it back from two years to one year. The minister will continue to have discretion to allow claims to be submitted after one year. That's important because it will assist with compliance.

I mentioned in my answer to your earlier question that investigative powers are inconsistent—they're fragmented—and it results in difficulty for investigators identifying which powers of investigation may be used in relation to offences. This bill addresses that challenge. It follows other measures that have been implemented by the government to improve integrity in the system. I think we all think that our healthcare services are world leading. They are excellent. It is incredibly important that all Australians have access to services of this kind. We can be really proud of them, but that means taking seriously issues of compliance and integrity, and our government is determined to do so.

Thank you for that bit of a response. I've put up an amendment to help with rorting, and that is to do with patients showing identification apart from their Medicare cards when they attend the doctor and saying: 'This is me. I haven't picked up my neighbour's or my friend's or my family's Medicare card. This is actually me.'

When you go into pubs and clubs or wherever, you have to sign in. 'Can you show identification of who you are?' 'Yes, no worries. Here it is.' If you want to go and have a beer or have a meal in a pub or a club, you've got to prove who you are and that it's actually you entering that club, and you've got to sign in for it. If you have a drivers licence, you have to provide that identification.

Minister, why are you and your political party so adamant about not ensuring that that is the person claiming those benefits from the taxpayer? They don't have to produce documentation proving that that is them, when we know for a fact that people are rorting the system. I said it in my speech. You've got 100,000 illegals in the country overstaying their visas. I've proven the point—and it came from the Federal Police—that I was told about this person who actually used his friend's card here in Australia, so—

Senator Grogan, a point of order?

I believe this amendment that Senator Hanson is talking to is the one that we've already dealt with. It is sheet 3373, which was a deferred vote, but it was actually called.

It's a deferred vote; however, the senator can continue in the committee stage.

Even though that's been dealt with? Okay.

Senator Hanson, can you resume your seat. I will take further advice, but my understanding is that this is completely within order. It is in order. Senator Hanson, have you finished?

No, I'm not finished. Minister, I'm asking you: why are you knocking back the requirement for people who go to see the doctor with a Medicare card to show identification—to back it up with identification that they are actually the person utilising that service funded by the taxpayer? I will go back to the point again—$3 billion a year in rorts. Why will you not support this requirement to show identification, when we insist that people going to pubs and clubs have to show identification to go and have a beer or have a meal?

Senator, I appreciate that you are raising the issues that you raised earlier when you moved your amendment. I gave a response, and I indicated that the government wouldn't be supporting your amendment. That's for a couple of reasons. The point of this bill is to give us investigative powers and to make sure that our investigators have the tools that they need to investigate noncompliance. We take noncompliance very seriously.

We also, of course, want to maintain access. In this country, we want people to understand that, if they get sick, if their children get sick or if they hurt themselves, they can obtain access to medical care. We don't want to place too many barriers in the way of people obtaining that care. I think many of the people that you represent in Queensland, Senator Hanson, would genuinely value their ability to see a doctor and to get the medicines that they and their family need. Those are the issues that we in the government think about when we're making policy around health care, and we're very, very proud of the system that we've created that allows people to have access. It's not so in every other country around the world, and Australians can be very, very proud of the system we've created together. It was the subject of very substantial debate, you may recall, in the most recent election, and I think the response that Australians provided to proposals around Medicare demonstrate the value that Australians place in the Medicare system.

Minister, that's very good. I like to see that national health care that we provide for Australians. But if you expect them to hand over a Medicare card, I'm sure that in their wallet they'll have a drivers licence or some other identification, so I can't see the issue with stopping them from going to see a doctor. And if they're not an Australian citizen, why are you providing health care for them when they should be paying for their own health insurance out of their own pocket, considering they are not Australian citizens?

Minister, there's another point I want to ask you about. You talk about these health centres—super clinics—that you are putting up. Can you tell me how many of them? You've advocated that these super clinics will be running 24/7. Can you please tell me how many of these, I think, 87 clinics you propose will be actually running 24/7?

The bill before us doesn't deal with urgent care clinics at all. I can inform Senator Hanson that the government's commitments were to create urgent care clinics which would have extended hours. It wasn't a commitment in relation to 24/7 opening. I can tell you that, in those places where urgent care clinics have been opened, we see community members very receptive. But there are limits, I think—there are other times in the program where you can ask the government questions about the operation of urgent care clinics, and I would suggest that this bill is considerably narrower than that and really doesn't extend to that issue.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3374:

(1) Page 40 (after line 4), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A — Special arrangements for pharmaceutical benefits in places of detention

National Health Act 1953

1 After subsection 100(1)

Insert:

(1AA) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister must, by legislative instrument, make special arrangements for, or in relation to, providing that an adequate supply of pharmaceutical benefits will be available to persons who are in prison or another place of detention.

(1AB) The first instrument made under subsection (1AA) must be made by the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subsection commences.

2 At the end of subsections 100(2) and (3)

Add "or (1AA)".

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Question negatived.

by leave—I ask that my vote in favour of that amendment be recorded.

by leave—And I ask that the vote of the Australian Greens in favour of that amendment be recorded.

Progress reported.

It's a pleasure to rise to speak to the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 and the related bill, the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025. The coalition, unsurprisingly, supports this bill and, of course, the purposes of it: to establish a national code to prevent and respond to gender-based violence in higher education. It affirms that everyone on a university campus, be they students or staff—and residents as well—has the absolute right to be safe.

The Universities Australia 2021 National Student Safety Survey reported some very alarming figures for all of us to consume, those being that one in 20 students report being sexually assaulted and one in six, shockingly, report being sexually harassed. Over half of students didn't understand the formal reporting processes available to them, and almost half were unaware of where they would be able to get support.

The bill, of course, is necessary because the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, failed to hold universities accountable. TEQSA does have existing powers to highlight university failures but did not act, and the minister did not strengthen TEQSA's powers or hold the regulator to account. This will establish a specialist unit within the Department of Education to act as the new regulator.

The coalition does have some concerns about placing regulatory responsibility within the Department of education rather than strengthening the independent regulator, TEQSA. The coalition notes that embedding this function within the department risks politicising regulation and undermining confidence and impartial enforcement. The minister is granted broad powers to set and enforce the code via legislative instrument. However, we are committed to supporting the initiatives in the higher education sector that aim to prevent and respond more effectively to the pervasive issue of gender based violence at university campuses. The coalition again acknowledges the work of advocates like Fair Agenda, End Rape on Campus and the STOP Campaign to improve the safety of students and staff on campus.

However, more action, of course, must be taken by this government to respond not only to the terrible proliferation of this activity but also to the rise of antisemitism on university campuses. That is why we foreshadow a second reading amendment to the bill, which is similar to an amendment that was moved in the last parliament to this bill's predecessor. The coalition's amendment seeks to establish an additional national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism. It responds to the real and urgent circumstances of antisemitism that students are facing at universities. We know that young people under 35 don't recognise the seriousness of antisemitism and don't treat it properly, and that is in part because of what is happening at our universities. Universities should be life-transforming places where people go to get an education. They should help give students more opportunities in life. They should be a place where students can freely debate and engage in ideas. Recently, there has been an attempt to silence and intimidate Jewish academics, Jewish staff and Jewish students.

In addition to creating a code to prevent and respond to antisemitism, this amendment would make it clear to all higher education students, staff and providers that everyone on a higher education campus has a right to feel safe. It would also impose on universities a range of obligations considering student and staff safety, which is very important given the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents on university campuses since 7 October 2023, and it would also ensure that higher education providers must comply with the recommendations of the National Student Ombudsman concerning the national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism. The coalition notes that we moved a similar amendment, as I mentioned before, when this bill was before the House of Representatives, the other place, earlier this year.

No student should have to choose between their safety and their education. An August 2023 national survey found that 64 per cent of Jewish university students experienced antisemitism, 57 per cent hid their identity and 19 per cent avoided campus due to safety fears well before the sickening events of October 7. We've seen clear attempts to silence and intimidate Jewish academic staff and students. That is, frankly, completely unacceptable. University campuses must be safe for everyone, and that includes Jewish Australians. Of course, the government has had years to act, along with universities, but unfortunately to date have failed to provide protection, recourse or cultural change.

The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in Australia, Jillian Segal AO, noted that antisemitism is ingrained and normalised in academia and in cultural spaces. The special envoy has proposed to work with government and grant authorities to withdraw or terminate public funding from universities where antisemitic conduct isn't adequately addressed. The special envoy has recommended:

Should significant problems remain at universities by the start of the 2026 academic year, as assessed by the Envoy's report card, a dedicated judicial inquiry should be undertaken to address systemic issues, including the investigation of foreign sources of funding for antisemitic activities and academics at universities.

This report shows that antisemitism is not just a problem of security or law enforcement; it's a cultural and societal cancer that needs attention through our schools, our universities, our media and indeed even the arts. The report confirms what Jewish Australians have been telling us for months—that antisemitism has surged to crisis levels while our prime minister has refused to act. The report shows that it's not just a problem for security and defence forces; it's much broader than that.

The Prime Minister has failed to commit to the actions required in the plan delivered by the special envoy, and he hasn't been able to indicate which ones he will support and which ones he will not. As the Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Alex Ryvchin said:

Ms Segal is the government's expert adviser on addressing the specific problem of anti-Semitism and, after deep consultation, she has produced a clear and practical road map for ending a crisis of more than 21 months and counting. This is something that cannot wait.

So it does beg the question of why we are waiting for the report relating to the activities related to Islamophobia before we act on the special envoy's report. We do commend this second reading amendment to the Senate, and, as I indicated before, the coalition will support this bill.

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025. Too many young people over too many years have had a story to share about feeling or being unsafe on campus. We know that's happening right around the country. I started university 20 years ago this year. It wasn't safe enough then; it's not safe enough now. I and many others can share stories of feeling and being unsafe on campus, and it's a reality lived by too many young women around our country today.

I've met with the National Union of Students many times, and I want to acknowledge their work and advocacy and their fight for student safety on campus. I particularly acknowledge the work of women's officer Ellie Venning from South Australia. The NUS have been fighting every day for safer campuses, and they support the implementation of the code. Through their work, they've highlighted that, even where universities have protocols for addressing harassment and gender based violence, staff often lack specific training and wellbeing counsellors are not equipped to support culturally and linguistically diverse or queer students.

According to the National Student Safety Survey 2021, nationally we know one in two students knew nothing or very little about the reporting processes for harassment. In my home state of South Australia, that number is even higher at 59 per cent. Of course, when we talk about this issue and the many aspects of it, we are not talking just about numbers; we are talking about real people. Our future teachers, our future doctors, our future clinicians, our future engineers—every single one of them is taking up that life-changing opportunity that university can present, many of whom have fought extraordinarily hard to take their place on campus and step into the future they want to create for themselves, too many feeling unsafe, too many being unsafe, who have been fundamentally let down.

We know that when students do report incidents, many believe that police are their only option, and only if there is CCTV footage, otherwise it becomes their word against the perpetrators'. We know the stress and anguish of this when students are making decisions about reporting or about their future actions. We know of students going to great lengths to avoid their perpetrators, including changing tutorials, disrupting their studies or leaving their studies. We see the burden falling on them to adjust. While every university sets its standards, we know we can see perpetrators moving between campuses or moving between universities.

The evidence is abundantly clear that gender based violence, specifically sexual violence and harassment, is occurring in our higher education institutions at significant and unacceptable rates. We know that too many students and too many staff members simply don't know where to go for support. They don't know how to make a complaint. We know they have been fundamentally and thoroughly let down. It simply cannot be left in the too-hard basket any longer. The latest student safety survey showed us that a staggering number of students are being sexually assaulted each year in a university setting—hundreds a week—a third of universities don't have taskforces or committees set up to address sexual violence, and many are not simply meeting the mark when it comes to transparency. This just has to change. I acknowledge that I don't think there is a single person in this chamber who doesn't see that.

This bill is part of our action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education, agreed to by all education ministers last year. The National Student Ombudsman was another key measure of the action plan which kicked off in February. These measures, when taken together, help ensure greater oversight and accountability of higher education providers and will help drive the social change we need to see in the higher education sector to prevent and respond to gender based violence. The ombudsman was a necessary first step towards keeping students safe and ensuring they are heard when they make a complaint. This bill is a crucial next step.

I want to reiterate that many, many people have been calling for these reforms for a long time. Many have advocated and campaigned for them and supported them. This bill will establish a new standalone regulatory framework to reduce the incidence of gender based violence. It's about working with our world-class universities to keep staff and students safe.

We know from the Universities Accord final report that at least 80 per cent of our workforce will need a VET or university qualification by 2050. Currently, 60 per cent of our workforce has a higher education qualification. By the year 2050, 80 per cent will need not just to have completed high school but to have gone to university or TAFE or to have had some other higher education or tertiary studies. What this means is that for our economy to thrive, for states like South Australia to reach their full potential, we need more Australians taking up the opportunities of higher education. Those Australians need to feel safe when they step onto campus. They need to know where to go for support. We shouldn't accept any reality which sees a single Australian, a single young woman, abandon her study, abandon the future she has marked out for herself, abandon every shred of work she has put in to go to university and to set herself on a course to live the future that she desires and sees for herself, because she wasn't safe or didn't feel safe. That is a future we should all reject. This bill is long awaited, especially for students and victims-survivors. I commend it to the Senate.

I rise today to speak in strong support of the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025. This bill enables the minister to make a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence—not that you would know that from the contribution from the opposition education spokesperson, but I suppose it's pretty typical of the Liberals to ignore and erase women. The national code is in fact about gender based violence, and it's the next step in responding to the Australian Universities Accord interim report, after we've already had the creation of the National Student Ombudsman and the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education. The Greens support this bill, and we welcome this next step in both preventing and tackling sexual violence on campus.

This bill will create, for the first time, meaningful and detailed standards that universities must meet in relation to gender based violence. These standards will be endorsed by a specialist unit within the Department of Education, and, where universities fail to meet these standards for student safety, this unit will finally have the power to enforce penalties, including financial penalties.

I want to extend a deep and heartfelt thankyou to all of the activists and groups that campaigned for this outcome, including Fair Agenda's Renee Carr, End Rape on Campus Australia's Sharna Bremner, the STOP Campaign's Camille Schloeffel, and Dr Allison Henry, who have been working to shape this code. They have been working on the issue of sexual violence in universities for many years. They have done incredible work. It's their advocacy that has seen us pass this bill tonight.

I would also really like to acknowledge the survivors who've faced harmful actions from their universities, compounding the harm of their assault. Too many people, mostly young women, have been left without support for their safety on campus, on res and in exam rooms. They have been left to drop out or fail, as a result of the failure to prevent that sexual assault on campus and as a result of the failure of universities to take action to keep those students safe on a university campus in that setting. It's unforgiveable and it has life-changing consequences for people.

The code as tabled will be transformative for students. It will finally provide an avenue to shift university practices to improve outcomes for survivors, who've been too often left abandoned by their universities. It will also provide an avenue for the new expert unit in the department to enforce compliance, which TEQSA, the tertiary education regulator, has so roundly failed to do. In the Senate inquiry into sexual consent laws in 2023, which I participated in, along with Senator Scarr and Senator Green, who I understand will speak next, it was abundantly clear that TEQSA had utterly dropped the ball on its responsibilities and that women and young people, who had suffered legions of sexual abuse and harassment, were further damaged and utterly retraumatised by the failure of the regulator, TEQSA, to do its job. I am glad that we're here today—essentially sidelining TEQSA for this matter and setting up a process that there is much hope will deliver accountability. We also need to focus on prevention. Through the course of that inquiry, we delivered a unanimous report that recommended an independent taskforce to hold universities to account on sexual violence, as well as an urgent review into the response to sexual violence on campus by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA.

The conduct of the universities in covering up sexual assault and harassment on campus, rather than actually addressing student concerns and keeping students safe, which we revealed through that inquiry, was utterly reprehensible. They were more concerned about protecting themselves and their own reputations than they were about protecting student safety, and that's unforgivable. We even learned that Universities Australia went so far as to cancel a student-led $1½ million consent education and sexual assault prevention campaign on campus because a few old dinosaurs, including the then head of Universities Australia, thought it was too risque. It was consent education for adults, student designed so that it would meet students where they were at, and it was cancelled, and that money got unilaterally funnelled into a staff program. I'm really glad that all of that work has culminated in the bill that we are debating and hopefully passing shortly. Repeated examples of universities failing to make real changes to protect students mean that the ombudsman, and now the code, must be equipped to do that.

Universities have to be safe places for students to learn and to thrive. That inquiry and its recommendations wouldn't exist without the work of those courageous advocates, some of whom I've named already. A few additional powerful advocates are Saxon Mullins, Nina Funnell, Grace Tame, Chanel Contos, Sharna Bremner, Camille Schloeffel and many, many more who have consistently pushed for laws and consent education to be informed by the lived experience of sexual assault survivors.

We're really eager to see this code mandated as soon as possible so that no more students have to wait for these safety protections. This is long overdue. These survivors deserve this protection. Those assaults should never have happened in the first place. We've got to work on the cultural changes to prevent them. We've got to make sure that universities don't retraumatise people by utterly failing them when they're most needed. We have great hope that this code, developed by survivors, might get us there.

At the outset, I acknowledge the role that Senator Waters played in the Senate inquiry into current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia, which went through the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, and thank her for her role and ongoing advocacy in relation to these issues. I note that Senator Green is going to be speaking after me—

Yeah, I wanted to.

Or maybe somewhat later. But I also acknowledge your role, Senator Green, in relation to the inquiry. I suspect that, when I look back on my time in the Senate, this will be some of the most important work I think I've done. It's hard to imagine anything more important than protecting people on our university campuses.

I want to quote from the report we delivered, and we didn't say this lightly:

… It is a searing indictment of Australia's university sector and the regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), that dedicated and courageous advocates for university students who have suffered from sexual violence on campus should hold the view that the process of making complaints and how universities and the regulator deal with such complaints is causing great trauma to the victims of sexual violence. In the strongest terms, this committee says that is a shameful state of affairs. It is unacceptable.

On that basis, I am very, very, very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025. In doing so, I also would like to acknowledge all the victims-survivors who have suffered the unbelievable trauma they've suffered on campuses and who have then been retraumatised by the way in which the institutions have responded—in some cases in an absolutely callous and cruel way. I acknowledge each and every one of those victims-survivors.

From the bottom of my heart I would also like to pay tribute to the team at End Rape on Campus. I pay tribute to the founder, Sharna Bremner, who gave evidence to the committee. I also pay tribute to Nina Funnell, who also gave evidence to the committee. I pay tribute to their advocacy and I pay tribute—and I'm not sure words are sufficient in this regard—to the support which they provided victim-survivors. During the course of the committee, I think Senator Green, Senator Waters and I obtained an insight, a small insight, into the toll that that took on Sharna and Nina and, indeed, on other advocates in this space. The support which they gave victims-survivors, to use two terms which are used in the national code, was person-centred, which means that it took into account the needs and preferences of the person at the centre of the incident who suffered traumatic experiences, and also trauma-informed, creating that experience of safety and trust and providing empowerment to the victim-survivor.

Perhaps the best way I can pay tribute to both Sharna and Nina is to say that, when I read the code—and I've read the code—I went back and read their evidence as to some of the issues they were facing. I'll quote from Ms Bremner in this regard:

A really common theme among the students we've supported over the last eight-nine years now is, 'My rape was bad, but the way my university responded was worse.' We hear very often the effects of retraumatisation once students have reported. They feel incredibly unsupported, even if they can find where to report in the first place …

When they are reporting, we are still seeing extensive delays in responses by universities … Once that process starts, students are still finding that simple requests for extensions, because they're dealing with trauma, are being denied or that they have to provide material from a psychologist …

If they make it through all of that, if they get to a point where they file a complaint and the university decides to look into it, they're then told that they can't tell anyone they filed a complaint … Then if they somehow manage to still forge ahead and get through all of it they're often told they can't get an outcome to their complaint because of privacy reasons.

Ms Funnell stated:

… we can do simple things to help students stay engaged with their education, such as allowing them to move tutorials so they don't have to sit with the offender—

It's absolutely astonishing that it requires the implementation of a national code through this place to force all universities to take appropriate action—

allowing them to have flexibility in their timetabling and their exams; not making them disclose afresh to every single one of their lecturers and every single one of their tutors—

that is, disclose what happened to them—

not having to produce medical documentation over and over again; and also allowing them to move bedrooms in residences so they don't have to sleep in the room where the rape happened.

That's the evidence we received, and I'm so pleased that, when I went through the national code, it ticked off all of the issues. Every single issue which Ms Bremner and Ms Funnell raised has been dealt with in the code, and that is tremendous.

Lastly, I want to quote from an announcement which End Rape on Campus actually put up on their website:

End Rape on Campus Australia has now permanently closed.

… Almost 9 years to the day since our founding, we've done the thing that all organisations like ours should be aiming to do—we've advocated ourselves out of business. We're incredibly thankful to everyone who has supported us over the years

Well, we're incredibly thankful to you, Sharna and Nina, for all the work which you've done. Can I just say that, while your job is done, our job continues in terms of making sure that this new system works, analysing and scrutinising disclosures which are made under the new system and holding the university sector to continuous account to make sure they're doing the right thing by our students.

It's my absolute pleasure to rise this evening and talk to the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025. It's really clear that these bills are the result of a lot of work by a number of senators in this place, and I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Nita Green for her work on bringing these bills here. Everyone deserves to feel safe at work and when they're studying at university, wherever that happens to be around the country, and that's why we've taken this step to ensure that higher education providers are proactive in their efforts in preventing gender based violence on campus, as well as putting in much-needed, better support for the students who need it and for those victims-survivors.

It's clear that, for too long, students and staff have felt let down by convoluted, unsatisfactory reporting processes. Systems that should have offered protection have instead added pressure, forcing victims-survivors to carry the burden of navigating complex complaints pathways just to seek the justice and support that they deserve. We know that inadequate reporting systems and a lack of proper support infrastructure can have serious and long-term consequences not just for the mental and physical health of victims-survivors and the people around them but also for the educational outcomes of students. Many felt they had no choice but to withdraw from their studies altogether. This works against the sole purpose of a higher education provider, which is to provide education to students, so that's why we are taking this action now.

The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children is the blueprint that underpins this bill. It's agreed to by every government and every education minister across the country. It's an ambitious plan to end gender based violence in a generation. For too long, dealing with gender based violence has been an issue put in the too-hard basket by successive coalition governments. Students, particularly young women, have been let down—let down by institutions who have failed to act, let down by systems and people that didn't listen, and let down by governments who have looked the other way. It's just not good enough. This is a plan grounded in evidence, taking a trauma informed approach and putting the voices of victims-survivors front and centre, because we say enough is enough.

Gender based violence, we know, is driven by inequality, disproportionately impacting women, people of colour, the queer community, First Nations students and students with a disability. This is such an important bill. It aims to protect students vulnerable to systemic oppression and aims to deliver better outcomes, ensuring safety across every element of campus life, whether that be in the classroom, at student accommodation or in university clubs.

I too want to acknowledge the many victims-survivors who participated in the committee processes and shared their stories, which have been really key in putting together the plan that is laid out in this bill. The plan lays out seven actions that will guide implementation and ongoing accountability. The first step is the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman, a truly independent pathway to justice for students and staff impacted by gender based violence on campus. The second is to have all higher education providers embed a whole-of-organisation approach to prevent and report gender based violence within their organisation, led by the most senior executives and governance bodies.

Universities are so often the ground for social movements. For many students, university is the place where they find their voice, share their passions and form their beliefs. These are environments where often we're first challenged and taught to challenge what we know and what we believe. Universities deliver leaders, thinkers and workers. So this is an opportunity to make lasting change not only on campus but for a generation of young people. It's why a whole-organisation approach is so important.

The third action under this bill is to strengthen provider accountability for systemic issues relating to gender based violence by introducing a new National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence. This code will be led by a new expert unit, initially sitting within the Department of Education. The purpose of this unit will be to assist higher education providers by building their capacity to prevent and respond to instances of gender based violence, as well as ensuring that the work being undertaken is informed by the latest and evolving evidence. Ensuring there is space for best practice to grow and change with the times is crucial for these programs to become part of real and lasting cultural change.

Another really important area is, of course, student accommodation, a place where we know that safety is particularly important and often, unfortunately, particularly at risk. Safety, of course, doesn't just stop at the classroom door. That's why this plan calls on student accommodation operated both by universities and by other independent providers for more seamless collaboration between those universities and accommodation, including in cases where the university doesn't directly manage that accommodation. This is really important so that victims-survivors don't have to make multiple reports and recounts of what has happened and, if a student does suffer harm in residential housing linked to a university, then the institution, the university itself, will still be expected to respond in the appropriate way.

These are not just one-time initiatives; this is long-term structural change, because we're in it for the long haul. Gender based violence has no place in our lecture halls, our labs, our libraries or our student accommodation. With this plan, with these reforms, with this shared commitment, we are building a future where higher education ensures every person is safe, respected and able to thrive. The evidence is stark, and it bears repeating. One in 20 university students report being sexually assaulted during their studies. One in six has experienced sexual harassment. Half feel they were not heard when attempting to report those experiences. So this legislation is about something that should never be up for debate—that every student and every staff member on every campus across our country should feel safe in their place of study or work. This bill is a critical part of this government's response to those failures.

Part of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, agreed to by every education minister across the states and territories earlier this year, sets out some really important objectives: to reduce the incidence of gender based violence in higher education; to establish national standards for prevention and response to gender based violence; and to create a regulatory framework to monitor and enforce compliance. This builds on the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman, which began its work in February, giving students a new independent avenue to escalate complaints, with real powers to investigate, recommend and now, through this bill, see those recommendations enforced.

What this means and why it matters so much is that it moves us from a patchwork of voluntary efforts to a really clear set of national standards, a national code which is underpinned by legislation that all providers must meet. Really critically, accountability will no longer sit within a committee or taskforce or be buried in some report somewhere that just sits on someone's desk and is ignored. Accountability sits at the very top of our universities, with vice-chancellors and governing bodies. They will be required to report on what they're doing not just in responding to gender based violence when it occurs but also in preventing it. There will be an obligation for them to train staff and student leaders so that everyone on campus has an understanding of what they can do to be a part of this change; to provide trauma informed care to victims-survivors who need it; to track and publish data; to provide accountability so we can see the true depth of where and when this is happening; and, importantly, to listen to students, especially those who have lived experiences. In unfortunate circumstances where a university fails to act, the government will now have the tools to intervene, because universities must be responsible for what happens on their campuses. They have an obligation to keep every student and every staff member safe, and that should be a proactive obligation.

I understand that there are some in the sector that have raised concerns about the regulatory burden that this may create. But to them I would say this: the burden of action for too long has fallen on students. For too long, it has fallen on victims-survivors, and those costs, psychological, educational and social, are far greater than the costs of any compliance requirements in this bill and in our broader plan to tackle this issue. That's why the government is establishing this gender-based-violence unit—not just as a watchdog but as a partner, offering guidance, advice and support so that institutions are best able to provide support and meet their obligations. It's not just about punishing institutions for the sake of it. It's about driving cultural change. It's about making sure that no student or staff member is ever made to feel like their problem is being managed away or ignored, like their experiences aren't important and like action won't be taken.

We know that many universities across the country, including in my home state of Western Australia, have already taken steps in the right direction. There is, of course, more work to do. This legislation supports those efforts and provides consistency right across the country to make sure that no-one falls through the cracks simply because of where they study. This bill follows many months of broad consultation within the sector with advocates, victims-survivors, experts, accommodation providers and students. It is not just a project that began in isolation; it was shaped by real experiences. I think that's one of the things that makes this so important and makes it a bill that really will deliver the kind of lasting change that we need.

Why does this matter so much? Why is it so significant? It's the first time that accountability has been clearly assigned to senior leadership at institutions, at universities, with the governing bodies of those universities to receive biannual progress reports. It mandates prevention education built from evidence and lived experience. It brings student accommodation clearly within a university's responsibility, regardless of whether or not they run or own the accommodation. It builds a national database on prevalence and outcomes, so we can measure whether interventions are working and take action if they are not. It provides enforcement powers where voluntary reporting has repeatedly failed. It does this because we believe that students should not have to fight for safety, that they should not have to navigate trauma alone and that they shouldn't be asked to settle for less from the institutions that are meant to support them.

This is about doing better for university students. It's about doing better for young people. It's about doing better for the staff on those university campuses. It's about making our higher education system stronger. It's about making our higher education system better, and it's about making our higher education system one that we can all be proud of.

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025, which sets up a code to prevent and respond to gender based violence in higher education. Every year, our nation is shaken by violence against women, and a wave of public outcry happens against this gendered violence. Anger and grief erupt across the country, with thousands of people marching in cities and towns across the country, demanding an end to this epidemic of violence against women and urging our leaders to declare a national emergency and to take strong and meaningful action to end gender based violence—because gender based violence is a scourge on society. No workplace or institution is safe from this violence. It is perpetrated on streets, in homes, in workplaces and in online spaces. Universities are not immune or safe either, but they should be. That's why this bill is an important step in achieving change.

This change is only happening because of activists and advocates who have worked so tirelessly for such a long time to see the national code come to fruition. So many courageous victims-survivors have bravely stepped forward and shared their stories to ensure that, one day, others won't have to face the same pain and trauma that they have had to endure. End Rape on Campus, Fair Agenda, the STOP Campaign, the National Union of Students and many others have campaigned across the country for their universities and leaders to do more to make students and staff safe. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart for doing this very difficult work but work that needed to be done.

The reports of sexual assault in unis are shocking and horrifying. Research conducted in 2021 found that, on average, 275 students were sexually assaulted on Australian university campuses each week. The National Tertiary Education Union's 2023 survey on sexual harassment, sexism and gender based bias in higher education revealed alarming results as well. It showed that the number of staff who personally experienced sexual harassment had increased from 19 per cent in 2018 to 29 per cent in 2023. Women continue to bear the brunt, with 38 per cent of respondents reporting personal experiences of harassment. The number of staff who were aware of others who had experienced sexual assault increased from 36 per cent in 2018 to 50 per cent in 2023. These are devastating statistics. The traumatic experience of the people behind these numbers can totally upend and ruin lives.

The extent of sexual violence at our higher education institutions across the country is a failure of universities and governments. It has taken far too long to implement change. Too many students have experienced sexual harassment and sexual violence at a university, including online, on campus or in university accommodation. We know that it is women, nonbinary people, people with disability, First Nations people and other marginalised groups who have experienced the brunt of this violence.

The 2021 National Student Safety Survey also found that one in six university students had experienced sexual harassment and that one in 20 had experienced sexual assault in a university context. That is truly horrifying. Of those who experienced sexual violence, only very few made reports and almost half of those who reported an assault to their university felt dissatisfied with the process. The situation is similar for staff, where only a small percentage make complaints.

It is beyond clear that expecting universities to act on their own failed. Too many victims-survivors have faced harmful actions from their universities, compounding the harm of their assault. Too many have been left without support for their safety on campus or in exam spaces and have been left to drop out or fail as a result. The actions of universities in covering up the sexual assaults and harassment, rather than seriously addressing student concerns and keeping students safe, have been reprehensible. Every student has the right to study in a safe environment without fear of being sexually assaulted or harassed. Every student has the right to learn and live in spaces that are respectful, safe and free from violence and discrimination. Every staff member has a right to be safe and free of the fear of harassment and violence while they teach and support students.

This bill has the power to create meaningful change that will make universities safer places for all. Again, I'm so grateful to individuals and organisations who have bravely shone a light on sexual violence, assault and harassment on campus. They have held universities to account for their abject failures, and they have pushed the government to deliver this important legislation. It is because of you all that we are here today voting on this bill, and it is because of you that our universities will become safer places.

The impact of this bill will be that universities must comply with meaningful and detailed standards to prevent gender based violence and sexual violence at universities. The national code will require universities to develop a whole-of-organisation approach to responding to violence and to make their gender based violence prevention plans public. It contains important standards and transparency measures to ensure that that change happens. The code requires universities to ask prospective employees if they have been investigated for an offence of gender based violence and bans the use of non-disclosure agreements in handling reports of gender based violence on campus. It requires high standards of trauma informed response and care where students do experience sexual violence. It is a way of shifting university practices to make them more transparent, to finally start to focus on prevention and to improve outcomes for victims-survivors, who have too often been left unsafe in university spaces.

The Greens are proud to support this bill. We have worked for years with advocates and activists and welcome this step in preventing and tackling sexual violence on campus, something my colleague Senator Waters and I have passionately pushed for for years. We look forward to seeing the code mandated as soon as possible so students don't have to wait any longer for these crucial safety protections.

Gendered violence does not happen in a vacuum; it happens largely against women and is perpetrated by men. Misogyny is actually life and death. We must reckon with that fact. We must go to the heart of tackling inequity and dismantle power imbalances and patriarchy. We must recognise that First Nations women, women of colour, trans women, queer women and disabled women face extra barriers due to lack of appropriate support and services. Most importantly, each and every policy and action must be developed through intersectional feminist and antiracist lenses if we truly want to make sure that no-one is left behind. Otherwise, the untold heartache and sorrow of women being killed and abused will continue.

I will conclude by saying a few words about Senator Duniam's amendment to the motion for the second reading of this bill. The Liberals just last week refused to criticise Pauline Hanson's One Nation for their racism against First Nations people. The Liberals also think Islamophobia does not exist, and here they are again weaponising antisemitism, with the sole purpose of silencing and suppressing criticism of Israel and targeting students and staff who are antigenocide. The People's Inquiry into Campus Free Speech on Palestine is shining a light on Palestine repression at Australian universities, and the methods and tools being used to restrict and crack down on academic freedom and freedom of speech are just horrific. Good on the brave students and staff for speaking up during this inquiry, despite a culture of fear created by the suppression and punishment that they have been subjected to.

The Universities Accord report itself highlighted instances of racism at higher education providers against First Nations staff and students, and a much broader study into all forms of racism across the university sector is being conducted by the Race Discrimination Commissioner. We have a National Anti-Racism Framework waiting to be funded and implemented. But the Liberals and also Labor have created this weird hierarchy of racism which helps no-one. Racism is racism. It needs to be tackled in its horrific entirety and grounded in the reality that, to tackle systemic racism, we must confront our bloody colonial history and the ongoing violence against First Nations people. So, no, the Greens will not be supporting the Liberals' thinly veiled attempt to shut down anyone who speaks up for justice for Palestine.

Senator Blyth, I just remind you that we've only got about two minutes before you'll be interrupted for adjournment.

Creating a national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence in universities is, of course, a noble intention, and the coalition is supporting the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025. I worked within universities for over two decades, and I support the approach to ensure that all students, staff, residents and visitors at university campuses are safe. It is shocking to learn from the Universities Australia 2021 National Student Safety Survey that one in 20 students reported being sexually assaulted, one in six reported being sexually harassed, over half of the respondents did not understand formal reporting processes and almost half were unaware of where to get support. It is clear that there is much work to be done in communication with staff, students and residents on the support and processes that are available to them.

There are some fundamental questions that must be answered about whether the government's approach is appropriate. This bill empowers the minister to make a national code that can lead to higher education providers losing accreditation and being subject to civil penalties if they do not comply. That is an incredibly serious consequence to threaten tertiary education providers with.

Debate interrupted.

Tonight I rise to pay tribute to one of the stalwarts of the Liberal Party of Western Australia for well over 50 years, who unfortunately and sadly passed away peacefully on Tuesday 1 July, aged 85, surrounded by his loving family. That is of course Terry Jackson. Another life member, Jeremy Buxton, was kind enough to write this tribute to him on behalf of the Liberal Party of Western Australia, and I would like to have it officially recorded in the Hansard. The tribute reads:

Born in England, Terry immigrated to Australia at the age of 15. He quickly fell in love with his adopted country—drawn to its spirit of opportunity, optimism, and reward for effort. A trained engineer, Terry would go on to build an extraordinary life.

Terry was one of the active Liberals in the Stirling Division who formed the core of Hon Ian Viner's landmark campaign that won the federal division of Stirling at the 1972 election—the best Liberal result in Australia that year.

Terry was the founder of Sherwood Overseas Co Pty Ltd and played a pioneering role in developing and bringing to market the now-iconic Kreepy Krauly pool cleaner. It became an Australian success story, exported to the world. He enjoyed a most happy marriage with Val until her death in 2020.

Beyond business, Terry was a steadfast and generous supporter of the Liberal Party over many decades. He believed deeply in enterprise, personal responsibility, and giving back to the country that had given him so much. In the difficult years of the late 1980s he provided the Party with a central headquarters in a West Perth Murray Street building that he proudly named Menzies House. In doing so he sustained the WA Liberal Party for nearly 30 years until we moved to Parliament Place a decade ago.

Terry will be remembered as a gentle and principled man a devoted father, a loving grandfather, and a lifelong Liberal who embodied the values we hold dear. In 1993 he was most appropriately awarded one of the first Life Memberships of the WA Division of the Party. At the 2015 Federal Council of the Liberal Party, he became one of the very few people to become a national Liberal Life Member.

His contributions to our Party and our country will not be forgotten. His community philanthropy that included the restoration of the roof of Saint George's Cathedral with authentic slate tiles, resulted in Membership of the Order of Australia and recognition as a Chevalier of the Order of Saint Lazarus.

On behalf of the Liberal Party, we extend our deepest condolences to his children Victoria, Andrew and Sarah, and to his beloved grandchildren. We take comfort in knowing that Terry is now reunited with his wife Val, and we honour a life well lived.

This week, as we meet in this chamber, the Northern Territory government is rushing dangerous changes to youth justice laws through its parliament. These are laws that we know will harm vulnerable children, that will not protect our community and that are contrary to all the evidence. They are getting away with it because the media focus is away from the Northern Territory; it's often on this place.

Let's be clear who will be targeted under these changes to NT laws. As we speak, 95 to 100 per cent of the children in NT jails will be First Nations kids. Look at the data. It has been consistent for years and years. Some nights, every child in an NT prison is a First Nations child. The changes that the NT government is seeking to ram through without even a skerrick of proper process include moving youth justice out of the Department of Territory Families, Housing and Communities and into the Department of Corrections. The symbolism is clear and intentional. They now see First Nations kids as criminals to punish, not children to help.

These reforms are also intended to remove from the Youth Justice Act in the NT the requirement that detention only be used as a last resort. I heard the Chief Minister this morning aggressively pushing this and saying that it now means judges can lock up children without trying community support, without counselling and without putting children and families through programs—celebrating lowering the bar, to put more and more kids in jail. They're also making it easier, when they put kids in jail—remember: they're almost always First Nations kids—to use restraints on kids in custody. And they're ensuring that childhood mistakes will follow children into adulthood.

This, from the Northern Territory government, is all about punching down. It's about blaming the most vulnerable and marginalised members of the community for systemic failures on housing, on jobs and on education. The NT Office of the Children's Commissioner has correctly said that these changes are not evidence based. But the Chief Minister in the Northern Territory, with almost no scrutiny, just blows those concerns off—blows off the concerns of land councils—and she doesn't seem to care.

Young people don't commit crimes because the punishment isn't tough enough. All the evidence tells us this. Children are committing crimes because of homelessness, family violence, mental health issues and being kicked out of schools. And racist laws seeking only to lock up traumatised kids will just make this worse.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Albanese announced a federal intervention into child care using Commonwealth funding powers to protect children. Good. But if the federal government can step in for day-care safety, why can't they act and intervene when a state or a territory is deliberately, consciously, harming vulnerable young people in their jurisdiction? These reforms abandon evidence; they ignore experts; and they will make our communities less safe, while traumatising children. It's not justice; it's political grandstanding at the expense of our most vulnerable young people.

I, like so many, have been horrified by the violence we are seeing in Syria. After a generation of violence, the people of Syria deserve peace. And it's always civilians who pay the price when governments and armed groups escalate.

The Syrian civil war saw people from every religious and ethnic group killed, displaced and traumatised, and there needs to be an end to the bloodshed. The targeting of ethnic and religious communities by extremists entrenches violence, and we know that the vast majority of Syrians want what we all want—peace. The new Syrian government must do everything in its power to end violence and conflict and to make sure that Syria, which is a diverse and multicultural country, is also one at peace.

Israel has only made this pathway to de-escalation harder with its bombing of Damascus. We've seen Israel being given, again, a blank cheque by the US, and, unfortunately, the Australian government. And that must stop. The Australian government, like all governments, needs to play a proactive role in protecting vulnerable communities, and, for us, that should mean raising the humanitarian intake to find an additional pathway for those who are being traumatised in Syria and are fleeing persecution, who have connections here in Australia.

I want to make particular note of the letter from the Druze community calling on the Albanese government to publicly condemn ethnic and religious violence; to demand independent international investigations into war crimes and religiously motivated massacres; to support humanitarian aid, with settlement programs for persecuted minorities and targeted sanctions against those responsible; and to engage the Syrian diaspora communities to help document crimes, raise awareness and support justice initiatives. We call on the Albanese government to listen to the community and we support these calls coming from the community.

Last week, Australians were greeted with the extraordinary news that the nation's First Nations ambassador had run up a travel bill exceeding $730,000 in just two years. This included travel to destinations such as Hawaii, New York, Geneva, Dubai and Paris. This eye-watering sum would be galling at the best of times; in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, being presided over by the present Labor government, it is nothing short of an insult to hardworking Australians.

This is not an isolated lapse in judgement; it is the inevitable result of a role that should never have been created. The First Nations ambassador is a needless and divisive appointment and an expensive political indulgence, dressed up as progressive diplomacy. It's a role without a clear purpose, delivering no measurable outcomes and now exposed as a vehicle for exorbitant travel and unjustifiable perks.

Australians work hard and expect their taxes to be spent wisely on hospitals, schools, roads and defence. They do not expect to fund luxury international junkets for divisive public officials with vague or non-existent mandates. No other country has a dedicated ambassador for a race of people. There is simply no credible rationale for a taxpayer funded ambassador spending hundreds of thousands of dollars travelling the globe to implement a First Nations approach to foreign policy. What exactly has been achieved since this appointment? The government can't say and ministers defending the role only offer generic platitudes and have not identified a single tangible outcome—no major trade deals, no improvements for local communities, no measurable return on this extraordinary investment.

The role of the First Nations ambassador is another example of Labor's taxpayer funded virtue signalling, with hardworking Australians footing the bill so that Labor can seem like it is doing something about Indigenous disadvantage. The very concept of a separate ambassador for First Nations people is flawed. It suggests that Indigenous Australians speak with a fundamentally different voice to other Australians on the world stage, a racist proposition that undermines our unity. Australia is one nation. We should present one voice inclusive of all Australians, not segregate our diplomacy along racial lines. We already have a highly capable diplomatic service that promotes inclusive values and represents all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. Our embassies showcase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and culture. Our international envoys acknowledge and celebrate Indigenous heritage. There is no need to create a pointless and expensive diplomatic post to do what our existing institutions already do.

The First Nations ambassador role is not only redundant; it is divisive. It reflects a broader mindset within the Labor government that Australians should be categorised by identity, race and grievance. We saw it with the failed Voice to Parliament; we see it in persistent talk of treaty and truth-telling commissions. Labor's instinct is always to separate, to classify and to divide, not to unite. Australians have rightly had enough. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea that some Australians should have more say than others based on their ancestry. They want unity, not division. They want practical outcomes, not symbolic gestures. They want a government that treats every citizen equally, regardless of their heritage.

This is not about denying the importance of Indigenous voices; it is about ensuring that those voices are heard where it matters—in parliament, in local communities and in national policymaking. We don't need a globetrotting ambassador to validate Indigenous Australians. We need to walk the walk at home, together as one united nation. The First Nations ambassador role must be abolished immediately, not wound down, not reviewed and not quietly sidelined. It is a waste of taxpayer money and a symbol of the very division that all Australians have rejected.

Senate adjourned at 20:13